What is life?

@perplexity,

Is your pathological avoidance of argument to you a substitute for reasoned rejoinder? If you insist simply on throwing out unfounded assertions in reply, stop responding to my posts. Else, at least provide foundation for the claims you make and address the arguments contained in my posts. Pouting is not philosophy. Please stop.

@andykelly,

IF the universe requires us to be merely concious of it to exist then what about the crutial parts that havent even been discovered yet? Or will never be discovered for that matter.

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

IF the universe requires us to be merely concious of it to exist then what about the crutial parts that havent even been discovered yet? Or will never be discovered for that matter.

Further to the point, what does this say about the existence of the universe prior to the first sentient beings? That dinosaurs are fiction? That the universe itself is thousands of years old, not billions? Again, what is the evidence for such claim? What experiment makes the case for human attendance determining existence vs fossils and carbon dating? That there are no fossils unless they are excavated, that the age of carbon is meaningless unless a sentient being is dating it?

@NoAngst,

NoAngst wrote:

I state why truth by concensus doesn't work, give you example, and again you simply ignore it, and instead like the Energizer Bunny just keep going and going and going on with the same insistent retort.

I responded to a so called "illustration" with my view of the issue, to explain why the illustration rather serves to support my own observation.

The often quoted Galileo story also serves to illustrate my comprehension of it. The courage of a view such as his is very much about it not being an approved truth at the time and within the particular context.

NoAngst wrote:

As regards your answer to What is life? (not the original question by the way, but, hey, if you enjoy playing the accordion, have at it), no doubt you have ponderable evidence of this, results from experiments you've conducted, etc. Care to share them? Or are we to take you on your word again? Lemme guess: You will invite us to only look within ourselves to get the proof we need.

"How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?"

Guess who that quotes.

The most profoundly life changing experiences are such precisely because of not being so prone to objective analysis or peer verification, and that for some of us is very much what life is about. You may well prefer to emulate a regular zombie but that for as far as I am concerned is your own loss rather than mine.

If not so keen on metaphysics one can but wonder what the purpose here would be to begin with. That is pretty much what philospophy is usually about, and always was.

--- RH.

@NoAngst,

NoAngst wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pilgrimshost
IF the universe requires us to be merely concious of it to exist then what about the crutial parts that havent even been discovered yet? Or will never be discovered for that matter.

Further to the point, what does this say about the existence of the universe prior to the first sentient beings? That dinosaurs are fiction? That the universe itself is thousands of years old, not billions? Again, what is the evidence for such claim? What experiment makes the case for human attendance determining existence vs fossils and carbon dating? That there are no fossils unless they are excavated, that the age of carbon is meaningless unless a sentient being is dating it?

I'd thought that the answer to that was already well provided by what is already written about the Anthropic Principle not to mention the abundantly annotated translations of the Buddhist Sutras, if you really want to know.

The general thesis of Karma is to to the effect that life is of itself the fruit of our own thought and action, literally, and as such the thesis is open to some extent to scientific investigation, with regard for instance to the phenomenon of hallucination. Given the usual acceptance nowdays of "psychosis" as in effect a creation of a personal reality, it never seemed so odd to me, not so much of a leap of faith to suppose that we all do much the same, except that some of the various versions of reality are more widely approved of than others.

Further to "that the age of carbon is meaningless unless a sentient being is dating it?" is there an example to cite of carbon dated without the involvement of a sentient being?

It is a conjecture to suppose that anything happens without us there to witness it, without our perception to prejudice our understanding of it, much the same as it is a reasonable conjecture to suppose that the flatness of the Earth as immediately perceived extends indefinitely, except for the eventual appreciation of the curvature from a broader perspective. We never yet know what sort of broader perpective might be achieved beyond the horizon.

In philosophical terms time itself is up for grabs, so one is never going to get so far by attempting to invoke a subsidiary triviality as if to refute a philosophical proposition.

--- RH.

@andykelly,

What Was The Original Question On This Thread Again? Please

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

I'd thought that the answer to that was already well provided by what is already written about the Anthropic Principle not to mention the abundantly annotated translations of the Buddhist Sutras, if you really want to know.

The general thesis of Karma is to to the effect that life is of itself the fruit of our own thought and action, literally, and as such the thesis is open to some extent to scientific investigation, with regard for instance to the phenomenon of hallucination. Given the usual acceptance nowdays of "psychosis" as in effect a creation of a personal reality, it never seemed so odd to me, not so much of a leap of faith to suppose that we all do much the same, except that some of the various versions of reality are more widely approved of than others.

Further to "that the age of carbon is meaningless unless a sentient being is dating it?" is there an example to cite of carbon dated without the involvement of a sentient being?

It is a conjecture to suppose that anything happens without us there to witness it, without our perception to prejudice our understanding of it, much the same as it is a reasonable conjecture to suppose that the flatness of the Earth as immediately perceived extends indefinitely, except for the eventual appreciation of the curvature from a broader perspective. We never yet know what sort of broader perpective might be achieved beyond the horizon.

In philosophical terms time itself is up for grabs, so one is never going to get so far by attempting to invoke a subsidiary triviality as if to refute a philosophical proposition.

That you wish to invoke karma and other metaphysical speculations about space and time for which no ponderable means of confirmation is offered and for which none is even possible is not on that account a reasoned rejoinder; it is merely metaphysical speculation and insistence on the point. not unlike Dostoevsky's protagonist's insistence that he had a right to believe that 2+2=5. I'm afraid your "having a view" about 2+2=4 or the fallacy of determining truth by concensus does not matter one iota in view of the facts; the experiment offered to Dostoevsky's protagonist or anyone else doubting the reality of 2+2=4 is easily conducted; that concensus of opinion as regards a flat earth or the guilt of an accused murderer by jury who is executed and subsequently found innocent is ample demonstration of the untenability of your thesis.

More, that you question the validity of carbon dating because it takes human attendance to conduct the test wholly misses the point, and I think deliberately so; you confuse the test with the facts such testing reveals, as if the dates determined don't mean anything independently of sentient beings administering the test; in other words, that dinosaurs on your view did not exist independently in fact, but only after such time as sentient beings said so. If that isn't intellectual narcissism, I don't know what is.

@NoAngst,

Is your point that perplexities argument is that life or 'our'realit' is like a fictional story where things are introduced to the story or plot and in effect were not a part of the fictional story until it was intruduced to the 'reader' (or US). DO you follow what i am saying?

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

Is your point that perplexities argument is that life or 'our'realit' is like a fictional story where things are introduced to the story or plot and in effect were not a part of the fictional story until it was intruduced to the 'reader' (or US). DO you follow what i am saying?

I'm not sure I do follow. My point was only that (1) to deny the existence of anything not attended by sentient beings is scientifically false, e.g., that gravity, Coriolis and dinosaurs did not and do not require human attendance to obtain; and (2) that mere invocation of metaphysical claim to the contrary does not change the facts of the matter, and is simply disguised solipsism.

@andykelly,

Well, ok. It would seem that I agree with your statment as it is ludicrus to assume otherwise. Though I should point out that I need to re-edit my post because i have incorrectly written what I was trying to say. It doesnt matter now but ill do it anyway:

''Is your point that 'perplexities' argument is that life or 'our reality' is like a fictional story where things are introduced to the story or plot and in effect did not exist at all in the story prior to being introduced to the reader; sort of like a stage where all that existes are present or performing''

@andykelly,

It is probably time to get back to the original qustion, What is life? So does life have meaning, do we have a purpose in the universe? Are we the centre of it (hypertheticly),where we are in a crusial persison to think about it, to contemplate it? If we are the only things in the universe that can comprehend it-''where are we and why are we here?'' style;then is that actually providing an important role of which,done properly is it what we are ment to do? On another thread there is the discussion that we are made out of the same things as everything else ''cause we are all made of stars'' ,if you will, then would that mean that we are the consiousness of the universe?

I dont know why but is it a coinsidence that we can comprehend, or as it would seem, only we can? Though I dont know whyso dont ask,thank you! Smile

@pilgrimshost,

Perhaps in lieu of repeatedly asking the question, for which there is no answer and for anyone to offer up any reply which happens to come to mind, it would be more fruitful (read: philosophical) to ask why people ask the question in the first place, and in so doing shed some light on the original question.

@NoAngst,

Actually, it would seem that we are existing in a 'universe' with the ability to ask the question 'why are we here?',so it is more to the point that we ask this question, rather 'why do we ask the question at all?'! Though in itself it is also important. You may not care for this consept but as long as one person does, it gives it purpose. Smile

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

Actually, it would seem that we are existing in a 'universe' with the ability to ask the question 'why are we here?',so it is more to the point that we ask this question, rather 'why do we ask the question at all?'! Though in itself it is also important. You may not care for this consept but as long as one person does, it gives it purpose.

As you wish. Let us know when you find the answer.

@NoAngst,

There are some areas in this forum i dont go in, either I have nothing to say or Im not interested. So whats your excuse? Smile

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

There are some areas in this forum i dont go in, either I have nothing to say or Im not interested. So whats your excuse?

I do not need excuse. I clearly stated my interest in the question. I also stated that asking the question was not productive, other than for contemplative value (which is not the same thing as finding the answer). If you think asking the question is otherwise productive, by all means have at it. I only asked that you let us know when you find the answer, if for no other reason than to give me a great big nanner-nanner-nanner.

@NoAngst,

You are right though i would say it is not just to ask the question here but to investigate other areas also, religion, science etc. Ultimatly answers will be found in one shape or another! Im going out now so catch up with you later.

@NoAngst,

NoAngst wrote:

I'm not sure I do follow. My point was only that (1) to deny the existence of anything not attended by sentient beings is scientifically false, e.g., that gravity, Coriolis and dinosaurs did not and do not require human attendance to obtain;

But nobody contests whether or not it is "scientifically false". One was already familiar enough with the prejudice of the scientific axiom.

This being a Philosophy Forum, the issue would be whether or not the axiom itself is false.

It no good to suppose that it is not metaphysical to presume to know that something exists without the attendance of a human awareness to witness the fact, but not metaphysical to presume to know that something does not exist without the attendance of a human awareness to witness the fact.

That is heads you win, tails I lose.

Whether or not you prefer to regard it as being a scientific or a metaphysical issue, either way it is the very same issue in philosophical terms.

-- RH.

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

Actually, it would seem that we are existing in a 'universe' with the ability to ask the question 'why are we here?',so it is more to the point that we ask this question, rather 'why do we ask the question at all?'! Though in itself it is also important. You may not care for this consept but as long as one person does, it gives it purpose.

More to which point?

Do you believe in free will?

It is odd to me, irrational, for those who want to know why we are here to nevertheless believe in free will.

What is free will for except to choose a purpose?

Smile

-- RH.

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

But nobody contests whether or not it is "scientifically false". One was already familiar enough with the prejudice of the scientific axiom.

This being a Philosophy Forum, the issue would be whether or not the axiom itself is false.

It no good to suppose that it is not metaphysical to presume to know that something exists without the attendance of a human awareness to witness the fact, but not metaphysical to presume to know that something does not exist without the attendance of a human awareness to witness the fact.

That is heads you win, tails I lose.

Whether or not you prefer to regard it as being a scientific or a metaphysical issue, either way it is the very same issue in philosophical terms.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about. Familiar with the prejudice or falsity of what scientific axiom? And you keep mindlessly iterating your insistence on human attendance as if repetition alone will make it so. It won't. You will have to dispute the claim that human attendance is quite beside the point, that natural laws and causality obtain regardless of human attendance, and obtained for billions of years before such attendance. You have yet to address this. This is not at all a metaphysical issue, despite your errant attempts to make it one. If it is a metaphysical issue, you will certainly have to say more than that you say so.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know