What is life?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 02:48 pm
Zetetic11235 wrote:
The point was merely that life is only your perception of it. Stuff and nonsense! German Idealism!

What of physicalism? The converse to Idealism, the mind is in fact physical and under pull of physical law. It is bound relationally to that which it experiences.

Here is my conception of what is the case. In the problem of the illusion, the subject finds himself experiencing what anoother might not, but the illusion is true as a physical occurence in the brain. The illusion is just a missfiring of synapses, an undue chemical occurance in the brain. The illusion itself, thus, is the case, however, the subjects interpretation of said event, may not be. It is not a point of contest that the event took place, but rather it is the interpretation and extrapolation upon the occurance that strays into falsity. For it is inductive that one should think that one's sensual events coincide with the events of others. The illusion, with no external reference, builds on this inductive process and the subject must assume its reality, having no other events by which it can be dsicredited.

Now, if the illusion exhibits properties such that it acts contradictory to the general case in question, e.g. in the case of the pink elephant, if you cannot ever get closer, or if the elephant disappears, or if you can walk through it like a ghost ect, you must conclude that it is not an elephant which is pink, but rather somthing else which superficially resembles it. If further the subject finds that upon relation to other sentients, the being is not in mutual experience, then he must draw the conclusion that it is confined to himself.

Arguing from a pure Idealism, what the subject has experienced to be the case in mutual experience is general confirmation on the part of those whom are percieved as sentients. Upon denial, the inductive framework of interaction the subject has developed experientialy indicates that this occurence is not the general case insofar as it is not affrimed by these entities which would generally affirm it.

Now, in the case of there being no secondary or tertiary subjects by which the first can meter his experience in this way, the subject is resigned to either accepting the experience as mutually confimable or not mutually confirmable. Erring on the side of caution, if the illusion is far too fantastic, the subject might prefer to act as though the illusion was not mutually confirmable, though his correctness is not affirmable in either case.

An occurance, by my reckoning, is sensual, and only that. Perception is the reaction to the sensation by induction on prior experience. Certain contradictions to the general case are sufficient to confirming the nature of an experience.

I would not say it as you said it; but I could say life is all of life's perception of it. If you go on a journey how can you say where you have been and what it was like? You can only relate your own experiences with dates, and places, and names common to many people. You can never say: I experienced Denver by myself. Well ya; you and everyone else. Knowledge on the other hand might be said to be all perceptions, as the reverse is true, that you never know what you do not percieve, and it is always perception that makes people think they know something. Even Moses saw his burning bush, and so he testified to what he knew. If the perception is false the feeling it gives is not false. And knowing is an emotional state. We learn first what most effects our emotions.
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 02:51 pm
Smile Fido,

These are simply two levels of understanding, one does not negate the other, the wiser man knows however that, to have value/meaning in his life he must create it himself, this is not all that common an understanding or wisdom. NOTHING IN AND OF ITSELF HAS VALUE/MEANING, these are things created of consciousness.
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 03:34 pm
I don't necessarily agree though. Emotion and reason can on most but the very basic levels be divorced from one another. One might claim somthing to be true synthetic a priori, such as a new revelation in some field of mathematics, and that person might have found such truth entirely divorced from the presence of emotion.

The feeling one gets from stimulation that is divorced from the basic for of the object of focus, is the only thing which I might say could be false. The sensation cannot be said to be false, only the interpretation of it could be such. The illusion, therefore, is quite real, but the perception of it by the subject may well be false, for what is perception but synthetic juxtiposition of prior judgments upon prior experience.
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 04:00 pm

The area of judgement is always a source of possiable error, and emotion may well indeed effect judgement, but the experience of object as sensation is direct, pure, and without flaw, it is what it is, it is informing ones biology about its relation to whatever the object is. What is done with the information after this point, is where error may occur.
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 04:03 pm
Indeed, I agree with but minor discrepencies. For what sense does it make that sensual data could be false but judgments upon them be true?
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 09:09 pm
If our actions are reactions to the environment then we perceive the environment through sensation. So we must indeed judge based on sensation to some degree.

So I don't understand what you're getting at Zetetic.

If sensation is pure and without flaw then judgement is also unless the information is becoming flawed or corrupt, and such an instance or phenomenon would not be due to sensation, but other information.

Thats odd.... Why would I assume such nonsense.Surprised That would support my idea of a quantum side to the development of consciousness. Because information comes through sensation therefore when life forms sensation must come first and them information, unless there is intrinsic information linked directly to something actual. Perhaps the was particles bond and interact that make up the body, some quantum dynamics, would answer this? Or maybe I have a wrong assumption. :cool:
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 09:47 pm

"If our actions are reactions to the environment then we perceive the environment through sensation. So we must indeed judge based on sensation to some degree."

Smile Right, but sensation is true to ones biology, even if the biology was somewhat disfunctional, the sensation would still be true to that disfunctional body, in other words it does not lose any validity, it is what it is, an experience.

"So I don't understand what you're getting at Zetetic."

"If sensation is pure and without flaw then judgement is also unless the information is becoming flawed or corrupt, and such an instance or phenomenon would not be due to sensation, but other information."

:)Judgement is not pure, judgement might depend upon your accumulated knowledge, the metal that you were about to pickup if you had not sensed its heat, it looks cold, but it is not cold, it is white hot! With no past sensory experience your judgement might have you try to pick it up.

"Thats odd.... Why would I assume such nonsense.Surprised That would support my idea of a quantum side to the development of consciousness. Because information comes through sensation therefore when life forms sensation must come first and them information, unless there is intrinsic information linked directly to something actual. Perhaps the was particles bond and interact that make up the body, some quantum dynamics, would answer this? Or maybe I have a wrong assumption." :cool:

:)Sensation is information, and the information is relative to your body, the metal is white hot, that truth is the relation between subject and object--the relation between you and the object, but, from this point the process of the understaning takes over, and if you have not taken the time to sense the temperature, the understanding might say, of this white hot metal, that it is cold, pick it up.

:)Sorry you were addressing Zetetic, but, we can see what he might have to add.
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2008 10:13 pm
No thats great, I needed that example, I was brain dead when I wrote such nonsense.

I was too narrow viewed on the term judgement.
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 12:10 am
I think that supplied with your information and mine conjointly, Holiday has come around, though I am interested in what he has to say of his brand of dualism in comparison to my monistic view.

Yes, what I meant by judgement is any inductive process over sense data past and present. The sense cannot be false, it has physical occurance that is present whether your inductive reasoning draws conclusion A or conclusion B, however, A and B cannot typically both be the case when it comes to sense and perception. The sense data is the same whether you see an elephant or anillusion of one, but there are several key relational differences between the real occurrence and the illusion the main one would be mutual confirmation; if someone else were there, they would be able to confirm it. Even if you define people as objects of mental perception, there still holds a certain relational set of characteristics and the reltaion map of reality remains unaltered. This is why I think relational reality is an important concept, it seems uniquely suited to dissolve problems of perception.
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 08:14 am
Zetetic, Holiday,Smile

Yes, I do see what you mean I believe, where to the individual, perception is reality, the groups reality is agreement, and this agreement is but a compounded relational experience, a collective evaluation and judgement. It is what you might say that we consider authority, maturation I believe involves taking some of that authority back, we learn from childhood to heed the voice of authority from all directions, even where that authority does not recognize us as individuals. There is a great difference between cultures where one is based on the individual, while others are based on a relational world view, but this for another thread.Wink
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 01:11 pm
Zetetic11235 wrote:
I am interested in what he has to say of his brand of dualism in comparison to my monistic view.

Whats your monistic view?

I hold reality as being dualistic, and actuality as monistic. Objectiveness can be brought down in its purest form as being monistic. Anything perceived or from subjectivity is in its purest, dualistic. Simple as that.

For example, we might take Russel's view that the universe in actuality is just light, and different conditions enable different forms, and form requires perception to be distinguishable. (At least I think that was Russel's view, haven't read much though).

Actuality can only be one thing and whether or not it is light is questionable because waves might just be a viewpoint of our mind and not the actual form of it, and broken down.

I wouldn't even say dimension is actual. Dimension is a characteristic of reality because it is relational perception's ability, and we only find potential in the dimensions we perceive. Others when thought up or tried to be perceived spatially, end up being irrational.

In order for us to perceive there must be dualism, relation is the essence of consciousness's purest form, and thus reality's. And we do not perceive actuality, actuality is a basis for the reality we perceive, and reality is always going to be relational for it is a link to actuality by means of it as a viewpoint with potential, otherwise actuality in itself is without potential.

I think dimension could be considered a product or complexity, not corresponding dimension/size for its potential and therefore perceivability.

For example. In a 4D spatial perception it requires a sort f 360 degree perception so it would seem prudent to say that any conscious form would require to take up the entire space of the universe in order for that to be possible. But this is irrational and not the case. I think it is simply the complexity of what makes up our mind that harvests our perceptive abilities, including dimension. If we viewed form to be spatially inversed upon itself then we would acquire a good 4D perception, but such that perception has no potential.

I don't know how life could acquire such translation because we evolve through environment effect on us based on sensation, right? (Boagie, you'd know)
And since we are in an environment perceived as 3D therefore sensed as 3D, but not attributed to actually being 3D, it is probably hard to make that switch, not that it would matter. Why hold 4D higher in regard to 3D?

Maybe this is a reason for inertia? We change based on judgement rather than sensation? If sensation is pure and 100% true, then the environment can change and one would adapt to it rather quickly; but through judgement... then the judgement becomes information that gives our perception and biological change. And the judgement sticks even though not true. So it would be an imperfection to progress, or at least change, constituting inertia.:deep-thought:

So Laughing ... if we applied it in relation to objects where if a force applied, it will be stagnant. If an object is not moving then it will remain that way until a force is applied.

This tells that force is the only effect on matter, being that force is transfer of energy, we can say that conditions are changing for matter's allocation, in actuality monism works through its ability to affect itself.

Maybe because it is not actually doing so. I mean, changing conditions seems pretty relational to me. And that relational, realitistic sense constitutes a monistic essence. :detective:

If we said that yes by "conditions" there is more than 1 thing, we could say that the monistic essence of these conditions (which Russel stated) is a means for balance:yinyang: (and balance is of absolute means, one [ignore the 'twoness' :lol:of the emoticon). (of some sort I guess, dunno what it is).:Not-Impressed:

So, connections/potential that is made of the environment is not occuring from anything intrinsic like actuality unless...

wait ok... balance might constitute as providing potential, being that it connects everything.

Unless I assumed that balance was absolute means then it is the same as absolute randomness and therefore no potential in and of itself unless construed with a relation.. perfect:a-ok:

:a-thought:So everthing is nothing. (At least I have to assume that for this to work)Surprised

Any comments?
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2008 02:01 pm
I don't really care much for what I have read by Walter Russell.

My assertion was that all things have a relational pattern manifest in the mind and applied to experience inductively. From physicalism(which assumes the mind to be solely physical), these patterns and indeed conciousness itself must be physical, and indeed physicalism seems to have escaped idealism(that all is of the mind) by defining everything that can be experienced as physical. Since the patterns we attribute to that which we experience are given rise to by that which is physical i.e. the brain, it follows that these patterns are manifest physically and as such they are what is the case physically in general, but relational order has yet to be totally established. It would follow that every field is a subset of physics including mathematics(and mathematics in this stance would be the tool by which we can measure and map out the relational structure of the universe). At least this is what my view of physicalism is.

Idealism asserts that all is of the mind, but what is the case relationally in idealism seems to be to be true also of physicalism, which leads to nuetralist monism or allows for all of these types of monisms to be logically equivalent tautologies.

I don't believe we will ever have a theory of everything, for it would entail self encompassing laws which are self generated, thus it would require us to make a judgement that encompasses the totality of judgement, thus we would be called to draw a limit upon ourselfs and thus upon reality, somthing which we cannot do.
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 01:29 pm
I have nothing to say in response to the 22 pages of posts already here; I don't have the patience. Anyhow, here is my view.

(1) "What is life" is a fundementally flawed question which cannot be answered because the nature of some entity depends on its delimitation: i.e., its relation to other entities. Life, incluive of everything, as I beleive we all understand the term, cannot have any such peers and is therefore indefininable. In order to define life, one would have to get beyond life, to some other sphere, where there is something with which life might be compared; no such place exists.

(2) There can be no absoltue definition of life, as with anything else, (though things within life lack a clear defintion for a slightly different reason) though, in order to be able to say something, I would found a vision of life on sensation, visceral and individual. From that all reality, as we experience it, arises; reality has no meaning except when it is experienced. There are no trees making sounds while falling in the forest when no one is present to hear; there are no trees at all without the human interpreter; the area of the world called tree is arbitrarily fenced off from the remainder by man. The world is an interpretation, and so it requires an interpreter.

To convey my view, I'll use another tree tale; if a tree falls in a forest and there is only a tape recorder nearby to 'hear' it, does it make a sound? No, however, when hiker Bob stumbles upon the recorder and listens to it, hearing the tree, then the tree had made a sound.
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 01:34 am
our life is defined by our experiences, and everything that happens to us, all of this makes up our life, everything we think, this can be defined pretty simply actually, in this way.

when you wake up from a dream you would refer to it as "your dream", when you die you would refer to this life as "your life", to each his own... life that is.
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 07:08 am
No one can say what life is until it is over, and then what it is, is done. You know it is what all have in common, and yet each one is different; so if every life is different, how can we actually concieve of life. If you erase from your definition all that makes one life different from another then you have only the beating heart, and then apart from all we find meaning in, that too has no meaning. So any good definiton will contain all of the differences and all that the concieved has in common. The question I would offer you is this: How can we all have life in common, and only have life in common, and yet, be opposed to every other life in our desire for survival. Isn't the shared life, the life we share also achieved by learning to share, to live and let live, to give and recieve?

Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/12/2024 at 06:43:50