WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:59 am Unlike you I KNOW, and thus am able to distinguish between what is perceived to be true and what is actually really True. I have already said this previously.
Oooh. You have knowledge ? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why don't you tell EVERYBODY how you solved this problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:22 pm And what is that figure in relation to exactly?
It's represents the things I don't know. I thought you said you understand my words perfectly and clearly. What's going on now?
Age wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:59 am I told you already. I do not have beliefs. I just express what I see.
That's a lie. What you SEE is me TELLING you that I don't know anything for certain and that I have no absolute certainty.
If you were expressing what you see you would quote my words VERBATIM. Character-by-character.

But you aren't doing that. You are paraphrasing my words. And you are expressing what you INTERPRET. And you INTERPRET my words to mean 'I am always right'.

Where is this discrepancy coming from? How is it that I SAY that I am not right, I am less wrong, but you INTERPRET it to mean 'I am always right'?
It's certainly NOT in my words. So it MUST be coming from your mind?

So you BELIEVE you can read my mind? because you are certainly not reading my words.
Age wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:59 am What is not The Truth?
That you have no beliefs.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Wed Nov 28, 2018 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 5784
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:15 am
Age wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:59 am Unlike you I KNOW, and thus am able to distinguish between what is perceived to be true and what is actually really True. I have already said this previously.
Oooh. You have knowledge ? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Unlike your own admission, YES I do.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:15 am
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:22 pm And what is that figure in relation to exactly?
It's represents the things I don't know. I thought you said you understand my words perfectly and clearly.
Can you cast us back to WHERE and WHEN I said, I understand YOUR words perfectly and clearly?
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:15 amWhat's going on now?
What is going on now, in relation to WHAT exactly?

If it is in relation to Me saying that I understand your words perfectly and clearly, and now you are assuming some thing else? Then you will have to SHOW WHERE I said that FIRST, for me to be able to answer this clarifying question of yours.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:15 am
Age wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:59 am I told you already. I do not have beliefs. I just express what I see.
That's a lie.
No it is not, if that is what I already told you.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:15 amWhat you SEE is me TELLING you that I don't know anything for certain and that I have no absolute certainty.
Yes I SEE you TELLING Me that VERY CLEARLY.

But what you TELL Me, can be VERY DIFFERENT from the actual and real Truth IS.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:15 amIf you were expressing what you see you would quote my words VERBATIM. Character-by-character.
I have already. Your words VERBATIM, character-by-character WERE Evolution doesn't have a "purpose".

Although you TELL me that you do not know anything for certain, which I have ALREADY AGREED WITH, when you TALK like this, then you are SHOWING Me that you BELIEVE that you are absolutely certain. (But you have already cleared this up by stating that you only believe it is true to a certain extent. That is; you are only certain of its truthfulness, of and to any thing, to a certain percentage. What that actual percentage point IS we do NOT know until you inform or TELL us what it is).
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:15 amBut you aren't doing that. You are expressing what you INTERPRET.
Are you 100% SURE?
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:15 amAnd you INTERPRET my words to mean 'I am always right'.
I have NEVER INTERPRETED your words to mean that at all. THAT was YOUR ASSUMPTION, which you made on your own some.

Just because you made absolute certain statements like; Evolution doesn't have a "purpose", does NOT mean 'You are always right'. It would be rather foolish thing to do to correlate the two.

I would NEVER write "You are always right" (unless you can show the readers where I have). I would not write that because that is NOT what I think nor view at all. What I was expressing/exposing IS that the way you write some things, you come across as though you believe that you are absolutely true, right, and correct, about some of the things that you write.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:15 amWhere is this discrepancy coming from?
YOUR ASSUMING.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:15 amIt's certainly NOT in my words. So it MUST be coming from your mind?
Another ASSUMPTION, with a huge leap to a "CONCLUSION".
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:15 amSo you BELIEVE you can read my mind? because you are certainly not reading my words.
But I said I do NOT have beliefs, therefore I do NOT believe any thing.

Also, you would have to KNOW what the 'Mind' is to be able to grasp any thing here. But you are a long way from gaining this knowledge yet.
TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:15 am
Age wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:59 am What is not The Truth?
That you have no beliefs.
Once again, you state this as actual fact. Now, expose just one BELIEF of mine, if you so can.

Also, feel free to state as many as you like.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:43 am Unlike your own admission, YES I do.
Ok. You are the first person I have ever encountered who claims that they have knowledge so...why don't you start by telling EVERYBODY how you solved this problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma ?
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:22 pm Can you cast us back to WHERE and WHEN I said, I understand YOUR words perfectly and clearly?
OK. Right here:
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:44 pm But I do NOT misunderstand your words, usually. They speak loud and clear, to Me.
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:44 pm What is going on now, in relation to WHAT exactly?
You asked me a question. I answered it. Now you are asking me another question. I thought you said you understand my words perfectly.
Why are you asking me questions still?
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:44 pm If it is in relation to Me saying that I understand your words perfectly and clearly,
Well DO you or do you not? Because you seem to be questioning whether you said this or not.

Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:44 pm and now you are assuming some thing else? Then you will have to SHOW WHERE I said that FIRST, for me to be able to answer this clarifying question of yours.
I am not asking you a clarifying question. What I am confused about is this:
If you understand my words perfectly and clearly, then why do you not understand my answer? Which is 42.
Age wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:59 am No it is not, if that is what I already told you.
OK. Then you have to explain to everybody why you keep saying "I think I am right" when I keep saying that I am not.


Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:44 pm But what you TELL Me, can be VERY DIFFERENT from the actual and real Truth IS.
So you CAN read my mind?

Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:44 pm Although you TELL me that you do not know anything for certain, which I have ALREADY AGREED WITH, when you TALK like this, then you are SHOWING Me that you BELIEVE that you are absolutely certain. (But you have already cleared this up by stating that you only believe it is true to a certain extent. That is; you are only certain of its truthfulness, of and to any thing, to a certain percentage. What that actual percentage point IS we do NOT know until you inform or TELL us what it is).
Like you - I don't have beliefs. So You must be mistaken. Where do you see any 'beliefs' in my words?
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:44 pm Are you 100% SURE?
No. Only sure enough to point out that you are saying things about me which I am not saying.
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:44 pm I have NEVER INTERPRETED your words to mean that at all. THAT was YOUR ASSUMPTION, which you made on your own some.
No. You keep saying it. If I am not saying 'I am always right', and you keep saying that 'I am always right'. Then those are your words, are they not?
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:44 pm Just because you made absolute certain statements like; Evolution doesn't have a "purpose", does NOT mean 'You are always right'. It would be rather foolish thing to do to correlate the two.
You are a confused child.
Age wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:44 pm I would NEVER write "You are always right" (unless you can show the readers where I have). I would not write that because that is NOT what I think nor view at all. What I was expressing/exposing IS that the way you write some things, you come across as though you believe that you are absolutely true, right, and correct, about some of the things that you write.
Do you suffer from amnesia?
Age wrote: Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:41 pm you write your positions down from an absolutely true, right, and correct perspective.
Age wrote: Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:10 am You come across as what you say you "understand" is absolutely true, right, and correct.
And this is just from THIS thread. I am too lazy to dig up the others.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:41 pm YOUR ASSUMING.
Not yours? I mean - you can't even remember your own words how are we to know if you can remember your own assumptions?
Age wrote: Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:41 pm Another ASSUMPTION, with a huge leap to a "CONCLUSION".
OK. Then provide us with an alternative hypothesis. Since everybody can see that you are paraphrasing my words.
Are you saying that you aren't parahprasing my words?
Age wrote: Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:41 pm But I said I do NOT have beliefs, therefore I do NOT believe any thing.
And I say you do. And since I have provided sufficient evidence that you are a liar, and that you are very forgetful - I guess my word counts more than yours ;)
Age wrote: Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:41 pm Also, you would have to KNOW what the 'Mind' is to be able to grasp any thing here. But you are a long way from gaining this knowledge yet.
Says who? I don't know what 'the mind' is. I think the mind is a computer. And that works just fine for me.
Age wrote: Sun Nov 25, 2018 9:41 pm Once again, you state this as actual fact. Now, expose just one BELIEF of mine, if you so can.
You believe that you don't have any beliefs.
Nick_A
Posts: 5518
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Nick_A »

Greta wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:52 am Nick, I might not much know my philosophers but it seems that I've stumbled to the same conclusion as Kant did centuries ago. I found this while searching for info about Kant's noumenon concept (and the general difficulty in apprehending or comprehending actual reality, as opposed to useful abstractions).

“He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.”
- Immanuel Kant

Now the masses have become the New Animals (move over Eric Burdon) while billionaires and corporations take the role of the New Humans, at least in terms of roles and power dynamics. One controls and milks the other.
I agree. Kant has triggered something in you that has allowed you to see the concept of the great beast for what it is: a reacting animal.

Simone Weil wrote: The Great Beast is introduced in Book VI of The Republic. It represents the prejudices and passions of the masses. To please the Great Beast you call what it delights in Good, and what it dislikes Evil. In America this is called politics.


Of course Kant knew of it. The Man animal is limited to transient selective animal love. Evolved Man is capable of the love of life itself. Justifying animal cruelty just reveals the loss of a person's objective quality.

Somehow you've stumbled on one of the meanings of Plato's cave. It is ironic since you have rejected it with such passion. If something clicked I'm happy for you.
In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see.
Yes we are animals enchanted with the shadows on the wall created by the puppeteers. The puppeteers are these influential beings who create the illusion of meaning including billionaires, corporations and the rest who create the illusion of objective meaning within society.

Plato has described the results of the human condition. He also describes what is necessary to turn from it in the direction of the light so as to become realistic. You've recognized the puppeteers. We can curse them out but they are just a part of the Great Beast collective. We can learn how to be less attached to their influences and inwardly turn to experience the source of the light behind the puppeteers which seems to me to be the better alternative
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Greta »

Dubious wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:06 am
Greta wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:30 amI suspect that intelligence most likely thrives when life is neither idyllic or tortuous.
I think that the rise of intelligence was, in our case, an adaptation to prevent extinction and give survival a fighting chance. Most other animals weren't as vulnerable as we were or they just died out as an experiment that failed. The other major difference, we were already standing upright ready to improvise with our former front paws.

To nature, intelligence is just another adaptation for survival but once truly planted and operative it becomes self-fulfilling, more independent having a purpose beyond what it was originally meant to accomplish. I think that could be one reason why human DNA which has so much propinquity with that of Chimps and other primates can still be so far beyond them in intelligence which begins in self-awareness.

Metaphorically speaking, the first time one cave-man called the other one stupid by gesture or grunts is a testament that human intelligence has arrived ready to expand beyond its initial trials and limits.
Could be. We lost the trees and had to contend with predators on the ground. It's ironic that early humans' main predators were big cats and wild dogs. Now we adopt their descendants as "fur babies" :)

The "self-fulfilling" aspect you mentioned especially resonates and I think this is reflected in physiology. When metabolisms first emerged with life, that's basically all they were. Senses evolved because organisms that had some response to environmental stimuli would have survived more than those that just blindly followed the chemical trail of food. In time the senses became more complex and eventually brains formed to coordinate and filter the ever growing volumes of information available from nerve cells.

At some point the brain stopped being a servant to the metabolism. We are now brains supported by a metabolism, with the "I" largely associated with the brain. Still, the metabolism may well play a much larger role in the structure of our psyches than has so far been officially noted, with recent observations about the connection between the microbiome and mentality surely just scratching the surface (otherwise we'd have cures for everything).

At a larger scale, this seems to be what's happening re: the chat with Nick, where organisations have increasingly become the main game, the brain. We are like the microbes of humanity's microbiome, controlled by the brains.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:30 pm
Greta wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:52 am Nick, I might not much know my philosophers but it seems that I've stumbled to the same conclusion as Kant did centuries ago. I found this while searching for info about Kant's noumenon concept (and the general difficulty in apprehending or comprehending actual reality, as opposed to useful abstractions).

“He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.”
- Immanuel Kant

Now the masses have become the New Animals (move over Eric Burdon) while billionaires and corporations take the role of the New Humans, at least in terms of roles and power dynamics. One controls and milks the other.
I agree. Kant has triggered something in you that has allowed you to see the concept of the great beast for what it is: a reacting animal.
I've actually been thinking such things for years, just we've been too busy arguing all this time for you to notice or me to explain clearly :) As I say, the "new humans" are the corporations and we masses are reduced to being the "reacting animal".

However, since large organisations are a new emergence, they will probably follow the usual path of growth - a tempestuous and uncoordinated infancy followed by a sustained voracious growth phase. My guess is we might be nearing the end of this stage. I'm guessing hunger will increasingly be directed towards information than energy. Then the growth plateaus out with maturity, which is when the emphasis shifts from growth to development, which for life forms means consolidation, the spreading of one's influence. Reproduction of genes or, increasingly, memes.

As per the Kant quote, had we been kinder to animals then we would have fostered a culture ('the prejudices and passions of the masses' in Weil's terms) where organisations would have probably been kinder to us.
Nick_A wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:30 pmOf course Kant knew of it. The Man animal is limited to transient selective animal love. Evolved Man is capable of the love of life itself. Justifying animal cruelty just reveals the loss of a person's objective quality.
It's a bind because we are evolved to destroy and kill and swallow up animal habitats without giving a damn - and doing so has been part of our success (whether necessary or not). Further, we or our creations are likely to bring about another of the great emergences of evolution. Yet, in supplanting other life, we need to remember to not operate with a heavier hand than necessary. Sadly, that's not the case today.

Nick_A wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 6:30 pmSomehow you've stumbled on one of the meanings of Plato's cave. It is ironic since you have rejected it with such passion. If something clicked I'm happy for you.
In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see.
Yes we are animals enchanted with the shadows on the wall created by the puppeteers. The puppeteers are these influential beings who create the illusion of meaning including billionaires, corporations and the rest who create the illusion of objective meaning within society.

Plato has described the results of the human condition. He also describes what is necessary to turn from it in the direction of the light so as to become realistic. You've recognized the puppeteers. We can curse them out but they are just a part of the Great Beast collective. We can learn how to be less attached to their influences and inwardly turn to experience the source of the light behind the puppeteers which seems to me to be the better alternative
My interest in being enmeshed in and attaining status in the collective is zero. Society's knowledge is great, but conservative. There's much echo chamber activity because, until recently, people preferred to leave it to experts. This is fine except that experts cannot always reveal what they really think because it's too speculative and could harm their credibility. In science, unlike politics, if you're caught out saying something that is demonstrably false then it's very hard to win back credibility as a reliable correspondent.

So what is posited by science tend to be the very most conservative interpretations of the data, what has been pretty conclusively proved. There's been some shift in physics regarding highly inaccessible things like black holes and alternative universes via mathematical modelling, but no such equivalent discipline has been devised for that other great mystery - qualia, the 'hard problem'.

Therefore scientific models are not 'true' so much as 'correct as per human observations'. Our observations are of course compromised by the fact that we are evolved to survive long enough to successfully reproduce rather than to see reality for what it is. Perceiving reality deeply was probably often antithetical to survival, a 'distraction' (you don't get much work done messing around being constantly blown away by the amazing complexity and order behind everything, hence the first religions, I presume - to compartmentalise times to appreciate the wonder of it all, and thus focus on practicalities at other times).
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by TimeSeeker »

Greta wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:04 am My interest in being enmeshed in and attaining status in the collective is zero. Society's knowledge is great, but conservative. There's much echo chamber activity because, until recently, people preferred to leave it to experts. This is fine except that experts cannot always reveal what they really think because it's too speculative and could harm their credibility. In science, unlike politics, if you're caught out saying something that is demonstrably false then it's very hard to win back credibility as a reliable correspondent.

So what is posited by science tend to be the very most conservative interpretations of the data, what has been pretty conclusively proved. There's been some shift in physics regarding highly inaccessible things like black holes and alternative universes via mathematical modelling, but no such equivalent discipline has been devised for that other great mystery - qualia, the 'hard problem'.

Therefore scientific models are not 'true' so much as 'correct as per human observations'. Our observations are of course compromised by the fact that we are evolved to survive long enough to successfully reproduce rather than to see reality for what it is. Perceiving reality deeply was probably often antithetical to survival, a 'distraction' (you don't get much work done messing around being constantly blown away by the amazing complexity and order behind everything, hence the first religions, I presume - to compartmentalise times to appreciate the wonder of it all, and thus focus on practicalities at other times).
There is a perverse dynamic here, unfortunately. The concept of "power" is multi-faceted.

Knowledge is power.
Knowing how to influence beyond oneself is power.
Having access to resources is power.
Power/control over environment/our bodies increases our odds of survival. Bar all the externalities we tend to ignore.

To attain knowledge/power one must buy themselves the time to think about all that complexity. While having their needs met (food, shelter, safety, leisure etc.) which requires resources. While at the same time - elaborate experiments are expensive. And not just in terms of money, but brain-capital! And those other smart people have the same needs for food, shelter safety leisure etc as you do!

Career scientists have their own weird rituals. They preach 'humility' and so they hate sales/marketing. They also have NO idea how to acquire vast amounts of capital through the old fashioned way (creating value) so they need funding. But they hate marketing and so they are dependent on filthy rich visionaries or public subsidies! And as you point out - you are at the mercy of public opinion when it comes to credibility.

Winning at this game is hard! There are just so many dumb ways to lose!

But if you like risk and you know how to manage it - the world is for the taking!
Nick_A
Posts: 5518
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Nick_A »

Greta
I've actually been thinking such things for years, just we've been too busy arguing all this time for you to notice or me to explain clearly As I say, the "new humans" are the corporations and we masses are reduced to being the "reacting animal".
But why call them human? Nietzsche described those considered to be successful people as those having the will to power and those blindly attached to the shadows as expressing “wretched contentment. As I understand it they are both aspects of the Great Beast and both are reacting to cosmic forces according to their nature as do all the beasts in the jungle
“Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates. The truth is, nobody really possesses it.” Simone Weil
However, since large organisations are a new emergence, they will probably follow the usual path of growth - a tempestuous and uncoordinated infancy followed by a sustained voracious growth phase. My guess is we might be nearing the end of this stage. I'm guessing hunger will increasingly be directed towards information than energy. Then the growth plateaus out with maturity, which is when the emphasis shifts from growth to development, which for life forms means consolidation, the spreading of one's influence. Reproduction of genes or, increasingly, memes.
As we’ve witnessed life on earth turns in circles and cycles. Nature is forever striving for balance. In the jungle for example when there are too many deer, more predators are born to restore balance. Then the weaker die off. It is nature’s way. It may well be that disease or natural catastrophe will kill off Man growing and adapting in a way which nature must create. We don’t know how culture will change. We do know that it will change.
It's a bind because we are evolved to destroy and kill and swallow up animal habitats without giving a damn - and doing so has been part of our success (whether necessary or not). Further, we or our creations are likely to bring about another of the great emergences of evolution. Yet, in supplanting other life, we need to remember to not operate with a heavier hand than necessary. Sadly, that's not the case today.
You are describing what is natural for human being as it is. I’ve read society described as like giant slugs seen from a higher perspective. Sometimes as they crawl long they consume weaker slugs. If there is no incentive to change, why change?
Therefore scientific models are not 'true' so much as 'correct as per human observations'. Our observations are of course compromised by the fact that we are evolved to survive long enough to successfully reproduce rather than to see reality for what it is. Perceiving reality deeply was probably often antithetical to survival, a 'distraction' (you don't get much work done messing around being constantly blown away by the amazing complexity and order behind everything, hence the first religions, I presume - to compartmentalise times to appreciate the wonder of it all, and thus focus on practicalities at other times).
"Man - a being in search of meaning." – Plato

You’ve written about factual knowledge and the efforts required to acquire such knowledge. What if the only reason we are attracted to scientific facts is because we feel it is more than true – it is “good”? But what if the desire for the good has devolved into pragmatic aims offering societal rewards? Then the results of factual knowledge can lead to disaster.

Do you believe the search for meaning will be satisfied through more facts and the relationships that exist between them?

Is the search for meaning actually the need for a quality of conscious perspective within which facts can be experienced in the context of objective meaning? If so the need to experience and emotionally feel objective meaning doesn’t get in the way of acquiring facts; rather the two compliment each other in the process of becoming human.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:16 am Greta
I've actually been thinking such things for years, just we've been too busy arguing all this time for you to notice or me to explain clearly As I say, the "new humans" are the corporations and we masses are reduced to being the "reacting animal".
But why call them human? Nietzsche described those considered to be successful people as those having the will to power and those blindly attached to the shadows as expressing “wretched contentment. As I understand it they are both aspects of the Great Beast and both are reacting to cosmic forces according to their nature as do all the beasts in the jungle.
I don't see this "blindness" as a permanent condition. They are just the blinkers people need to wear to get things done. In later life they often step back and start to notice that which they ignored for the sake of security. Consider the deathbed regrets - often about not savouring life enough and avoidant behaviours like workaholism and addictions. The blinkers are coming off at that point because their duties are done.
Nick_A wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:16 am
However, since large organisations are a new emergence, they will probably follow the usual path of growth - a tempestuous and uncoordinated infancy followed by a sustained voracious growth phase. My guess is we might be nearing the end of this stage. I'm guessing hunger will increasingly be directed towards information than energy. Then the growth plateaus out with maturity, which is when the emphasis shifts from growth to development, which for life forms means consolidation, the spreading of one's influence. Reproduction of genes or, increasingly, memes.
As we’ve witnessed life on earth turns in circles and cycles. Nature is forever striving for balance. In the jungle for example when there are too many deer, more predators are born to restore balance. Then the weaker die off. It is nature’s way. It may well be that disease or natural catastrophe will kill off Man growing and adapting in a way which nature must create. We don’t know how culture will change. We do know that it will change.
The same could be said for life itself - the striving for balance, the internal rebalancing processes. We are, as you say, undergoing rapid cultural change everywhere, as you'd expect in a rapidly changing biosphere.
Nick_A wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:16 am
It's a bind because we are evolved to destroy and kill and swallow up animal habitats without giving a damn - and doing so has been part of our success (whether necessary or not). Further, we or our creations are likely to bring about another of the great emergences of evolution. Yet, in supplanting other life, we need to remember to not operate with a heavier hand than necessary. Sadly, that's not the case today.
You are describing what is natural for human being as it is. I’ve read society described as like giant slugs seen from a higher perspective. Sometimes as they crawl long they consume weaker slugs. If there is no incentive to change, why change?
Seemingly that's how the game is being played, with repeated tragedies of the commons playing out because some sly characters will always seek an extra edge by pushing that much harder, and the concept of proportionality is lost.
Nick_A wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:16 am
Therefore scientific models are not 'true' so much as 'correct as per human observations'. Our observations are of course compromised by the fact that we are evolved to survive long enough to successfully reproduce rather than to see reality for what it is. Perceiving reality deeply was probably often antithetical to survival, a 'distraction' (you don't get much work done messing around being constantly blown away by the amazing complexity and order behind everything, hence the first religions, I presume - to compartmentalise times to appreciate the wonder of it all, and thus focus on practicalities at other times).
"Man - a being in search of meaning." – Plato

You’ve written about factual knowledge and the efforts required to acquire such knowledge. What if the only reason we are attracted to scientific facts is because we feel it is more than true – it is “good”? But what if the desire for the good has devolved into pragmatic aims offering societal rewards? Then the results of factual knowledge can lead to disaster.

Do you believe the search for meaning will be satisfied through more facts and the relationships that exist between them?

Is the search for meaning actually the need for a quality of conscious perspective within which facts can be experienced in the context of objective meaning? If so the need to experience and emotionally feel objective meaning doesn’t get in the way of acquiring facts; rather the two compliment each other in the process of becoming human.
We want facts because, without them, you can't judge the dozens of claims and counter claims being made. It's not so much about goodness IMO as a filter, and a shield against manipulation, lies and deception. However, today that shield is breaking down through weak reckoning or accountability.

As for meaning derived from the facts, I don't see that yet. We still think pretty small, in bits - not seeing the forests for the trees.

We tend not to look much at the overall journey from the fiery prebiotic Hadean Era during the late heavy bombardment to today's biosphere and consider the whole as a single emerging system. We tend to do the same thing with human emergences too, not recognising the emergence of organisations as structures that actively compete, extremely successfully, with individual humans. The breaking of trade union membership was critical in this battle, which in hindsight, was the last small bastion of resistance by the people against institutional dominance that was soon quashed, like a small reverse breaker in a tsunami.

Now consider the journey of nonhuman animals and the effect that humanity has had on them. That is roughly what we humans have in store for us at the hands of corporations. They won't be predators that eat our flesh, but klepto-predators that consume our resources and territory, pusihing us into ever smaller encolosures. In a century I expect the planet will be astoundingly transformed, much more so than the last.
Nick_A
Posts: 5518
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Nick_A »

Greta
I don't see this "blindness" as a permanent condition. They are just the blinkers people need to wear to get things done. In later life they often step back and start to notice that which they ignored for the sake of security. Consider the deathbed regrets - often about not savouring life enough and avoidant behaviours like workaholism and addictions. The blinkers are coming off at that point because their duties are done.
But if the majority prefer blindness and many try to acquire the will to power Nietzsche spoke of, there is no collective incentive for humanity to be other then it is and keep repeating the results of the same hypocrisy over and over. It is only individuals that begin to see the light and society ridicules and defends blindness
We want facts because, without them, you can't judge the dozens of claims and counter claims being made. It's not so much about goodness IMO as a filter, and a shield against manipulation, lies and deception. However, today that shield is breaking down through weak reckoning or accountability.

As for meaning derived from the facts, I don't see that yet. We still think pretty small, in bits - not seeing the forests for the trees.


I agree that facts are necessary for many reasons and they also protect us from self deception. The intellect protects the heart. However facts do not lead to the experience of objective value and wisdom the person of philosophy and religion is drawn to. Facts are one thing and value is another.

We can gradually acquire more facts but what do you believe is the reason we haven’t learned by the facts already acquired. Why does Man remain an animal capable of simultaneous compassion and atrocities without sensing the hypocrisy? After you explain to me what you believe is the chief cause of why hypocrisy is so easily accepted, then I’ll explain mine and we can compare them.
We tend not to look much at the overall journey from the fiery prebiotic Hadean Era during the late heavy bombardment to today's biosphere and consider the whole as a single emerging system. We tend to do the same thing with human emergences too, not recognising the emergence of organisations as structures that actively compete, extremely successfully, with individual humans. The breaking of trade union membership was critical in this battle, which in hindsight, was the last small bastion of resistance by the people against institutional dominance that was soon quashed, like a small reverse breaker in a tsunami.
I agree. All this is normal for creatures of reaction acting as a giant collective in Plato’s cave reacting to natural and cosmic influences.
Now consider the journey of nonhuman animals and the effect that humanity has had on them. That is roughly what we humans have in store for us at the hands of corporations. They won't be predators that eat our flesh, but klepto-predators that consume our resources and territory, pusihing us into ever smaller encolosures. In a century I expect the planet will be astoundingly transformed, much more so than the last.
Teen suicide is on the rise.

http://time.com/5279029/suicide-rates-rising-study/
The number of kids hospitalized for thinking about or attempting suicide doubled in less than a decade, according to a study published Wednesday in Pediatrics.
In 2008, 0.66% of all U.S. children’s hospital visits were due to either suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts, also known as suicide ideation. By 2015, according to the study, that number had jumped to 1.82%, with rates rising across age groups and demographics.
The largest increases were seen among adolescents between two age groups — 15 and 17, and 12 and 14 — according to the study. Increases were also higher among girls than boys, the study says. Interestingly, the researchers also observed significantly more suicide attempts or ideations during the school year; that’s in contrast to adults, among whom suicide rates tend to spike in spring and summer.
To reach these findings, researchers used billing data from the Pediatric Health Information System database, which tracks youth emergency room and inpatient hospital visits. The database showed that more than 115,800 suicide attempts or ideations occurred during the seven-year study period.
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has shown that the number of teenagers dying by suicide is also on the rise.
Why youth suicide rates are creeping up is harder to suss out. It may have something to do with climbing rates of depression and loneliness among young people, or that pediatricians are increasingly referring children with mental health issues to specialists or hospitals. The prevalence of social media may also play a part, Dr. Gregory Plemmons, an associate professor of clinical pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and the new study’s first author, told NBC News.
The effects of large corporations you’ve described just contributes to the growing loss of meaning that now dominates America. The deeper questions as to who and what we are were once advocated are now ridiculed as naïve in comparison to the god of technology. Yet when teens become more empty inside and the usual materialism and commercialism no longer satisfies, what can be more natural than suicide?
Mortalsfool
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Mortalsfool »

After quite a few years obsessing over the only real question philosophy ponders, "why?", I've arrived to an answer that rewards my quest. I'll share, for what it's worth; the establishment of a universal language.

If, there is a God, and he/she/it created all that exists, I presume it likely that there is indeed a purpose for our existence. Any such 'purpose' would not be confined to the shadows, instead, it would exist as an observable phenomenon. It would show its prominence in a wake of noticeable influence in mankind's progression. Nothing has done this more than the development of words and language! Our skill at using words and forming analogies, has enabled us, not only to understand the world we live in, but to share our ideas and views. Not only of reality, but those things that are of the mind. Things without which we would still be gathering fruit with our tribes. So I accepted the development of a language as being the purpose of our life experience.
Having accepted that, I had to consider the other question, "how and why could such a thing be needed?"

I came up with a purpose that satisfied me, by questioning, "What disadvantage would a person suffer if they arrived in the next life, not possessing the value life's purpose tried to teach?" The only way that I could do this was by imagining some form of poetic justice, in which one person enters afterlife, with the advantage and one does not.

I hate to use the extremes, but it shouldn't matter to an atheist anyway, if I say that he arrives in whatever afterlife faces us, with great disadvantage.

Imagine the fairness of a poetic justice that could decree, "Since you didn't believe in afterlife, you still have it, but you will carry no memory of your past life!" Fair! Nothing taken, chosen, possibly. No words, no memories with which to build analogies, no imagery to put in perspective things beyond our present imaginations. Even that which is unimaginable to us now, is not beyond the descriptive powers words possess. I accept that life is no more than a primer for a universal language.

It seems that I'm not assigning any more value to words, then do the religious works of mankind; the whole Bible is about the importance of words.
Age
Posts: 5784
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Age »

Mortalsfool wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:52 am After quite a few years obsessing over the only real question philosophy ponders, "why?", I've arrived to an answer that rewards my quest. I'll share, for what it's worth; the establishment of a universal language.

If, there is a God, and he/she/it created all that exists, I presume it likely that there is indeed a purpose for our existence. Any such 'purpose' would not be confined to the shadows, instead, it would exist as an observable phenomenon. It would show its prominence in a wake of noticeable influence in mankind's progression. Nothing has done this more than the development of words and language! Our skill at using words and forming analogies, has enabled us, not only to understand the world we live in, but to share our ideas and views. Not only of reality, but those things that are of the mind. Things without which we would still be gathering fruit with our tribes. So I accepted the development of a language as being the purpose of our life experience.
Having accepted that, I had to consider the other question, "how and why could such a thing be needed?"

I came up with a purpose that satisfied me, by questioning, "What disadvantage would a person suffer if they arrived in the next life, not possessing the value life's purpose tried to teach?" The only way that I could do this was by imagining some form of poetic justice, in which one person enters afterlife, with the advantage and one does not.

I hate to use the extremes, but it shouldn't matter to an atheist anyway, if I say that he arrives in whatever afterlife faces us, with great disadvantage.

Imagine the fairness of a poetic justice that could decree, "Since you didn't believe in afterlife, you still have it, but you will carry no memory of your past life!" Fair! Nothing taken, chosen, possibly. No words, no memories with which to build analogies, no imagery to put in perspective things beyond our present imaginations. Even that which is unimaginable to us now, is not beyond the descriptive powers words possess. I accept that life is no more than a primer for a universal language.


Is there something unimaginable to you now?

Mortalsfool wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:52 amIt seems that I'm not assigning any more value to words, then do the religious works of mankind; the whole Bible is about the importance of words.
Belinda
Posts: 4583
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Belinda »

Mortalsfool wrote:
If, there is a God, and he/she/it created all that exists, I presume it likely that there is indeed a purpose for our existence.
The creator doesn't necessarily purpose anything. The creator may be a mathematical formula.
Mortalsfool
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Mortalsfool »

Age wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 12:40 pm
Mortalsfool wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:52 am After quite a few years obsessing over the only real question philosophy ponders, "why?", I've arrived to an answer that rewards my quest. I'll share, for what it's worth; the establishment of a universal language.

If, there is a God, and he/she/it created all that exists, I presume it likely that there is indeed a purpose for our existence. Any such 'purpose' would not be confined to the shadows, instead, it would exist as an observable phenomenon. It would show its prominence in a wake of noticeable influence in mankind's progression. Nothing has done this more than the development of words and language! Our skill at using words and forming analogies, has enabled us, not only to understand the world we live in, but to share our ideas and views. Not only of reality, but those things that are of the mind. Things without which we would still be gathering fruit with our tribes. So I accepted the development of a language as being the purpose of our life experience.
Having accepted that, I had to consider the other question, "how and why could such a thing be needed?"

I came up with a purpose that satisfied me, by questioning, "What disadvantage would a person suffer if they arrived in the next life, not possessing the value life's purpose tried to teach?" The only way that I could do this was by imagining some form of poetic justice, in which one person enters afterlife, with the advantage and one does not.

I hate to use the extremes, but it shouldn't matter to an atheist anyway, if I say that he arrives in whatever afterlife faces us, with great disadvantage.

Imagine the fairness of a poetic justice that could decree, "Since you didn't believe in afterlife, you still have it, but you will carry no memory of your past life!" Fair! Nothing taken, chosen, possibly. No words, no memories with which to build analogies, no imagery to put in perspective things beyond our present imaginations. Even that which is unimaginable to us now, is not beyond the descriptive powers words possess. I accept that life is no more than a primer for a universal language.


Is there something unimaginable to you now?
Mortalsfool wrote: I believe there is not!
Mortalsfool
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

Post by Mortalsfool »

Belinda wrote: Sun Dec 02, 2018 8:18 pm Mortalsfool wrote:
If, there is a God, and he/she/it created all that exists, I presume it likely that there is indeed a purpose for our existence.
The creator doesn't necessarily purpose anything. The creator may be a mathematical formula.
Mortalsfool wrote: Mathematical formulas are designed to accomplish very specific purposes, are they not? That's why I included the word "it", afterlife may indeed be no more than some natural occurrence which we're not familiar with, perhaps even some trans-formative algorithm.
Post Reply