"Henry;...If you think the world keeps on ticking whether anyone is around or not, then you think that on faith, and not on any sort of evidence..."


Actually: I have more evidence for my position than you, yours.

1-People die every day in droves. I see no evidence the world/reality takes any notice of the death of one, or a million. Sure: 'we' (human individuals) notice the deaths of friends, family, and strangers, but, the world/reality does not.

If you can counter this with some kind of verifiable evidence, I'd love to see it.

2-At some point in the past, the world/reality had not a single human individual living in it. I think it's safe to say, in fact: if you go back far enough on the timeline of the universe, there was a point when no life of any kind existed. But that embryonic universe did exist, and it existed quite independently of any 'mind'.

The line is as follows: universe (origin, development, complexifying, meaningless and devoid of meaning-givers) leads to life (simple to complex, self-organizing, biological automation) leads to meaning-givers (idiosyncratic, autonomous, self-aware/reflective/organizing/determining/possessing).

Now: if you have any evidence to support your position (other than ill-informed intuition) I'd be happy to examine and consider it.

However: as things stand, you haven't given me any reason to reconsider my view, that being: When 'you' die the world ends FOR 'you', but the world itself keeps right on ticking away whether you're here or not. Even if each of us (all six billion plus) die right now, this second, the world/universe/reality is gonna keep right on ticking away.

The deaths of any number of people has no bearing on the reality following our own deaths... We die, all dies... What people do, and the evil they do thinking something outlasts them is crazy, and obscene... Try the Killgore Trout test... When he believed he was the only living person in the world, and that all the rest had been replaced by machines, how could anyone prove otherwise??? Knowledge eludes us... I don't even know what Killgore Trout believed since it is so long since I heard of him...Only certain knowledge is ours, and faith has to cover all the rest....

"The deaths of any number of people has no bearing on the reality following our own deaths..."

Again: when you, Fido, die, the world as you experience it, dies with you. That is: your subjective perspective dies with you. But: the world as objective, independent-of-you, phenomenon continues right on without you.


"We die, all dies... What people do, and the evil they do thinking something outlasts them is crazy, and obscene..."

Lots of made things outlast the maker: take Kilgore Trout. Vonnegut wrote him, used him as alter ego. That is: Kurt Vonnegut, a real person, made up Kilgore Trout. Trout is a fiction, a puppet. Old Kilgore only did what Vonnegut thunk up for him.

And since Kilgore Trout, by way of Vonnegut's writing, continues on while old Kurt is dead and buried, I think we -- you and me -- can safely conclude that, again, lots of things outlast the maker.


"Try the Kilgore Trout test... When he believed he was the only living person in the world, and that all the rest had been replaced by machines, how could anyone prove otherwise???"

It's a dumb question simply because (as general rule of thumb) you can't talk sense to a crazy man. If Fido believes he's the only actual person in a world filled up with robots then I'm thinkin' no amount of legitimate persuasion is gonna change his mind. Even if I take a karambit and peel back layers of my own flesh, the likelihood is that even this kind of extreme demonstration won't change Fido's mind.


"Knowledge eludes us..."

In what way? Certainly: absolute knowledge is elusive, but common, day-to-day, knowledge hangs in the air like smoke, just waiting to be captured. The trick: capturing it...

---------- Post added at 02:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 PM ----------

'Lots of made things outlast the maker.'

And: when the last human gasps out his or her death rattle, even poor Kilgore goes the way of the Dodo. As fiction: Trout only 'lives' as long as one of us real folk hold him in our heads.

But the trees that might have provided the paper for another reprint of 'Time Quake', these trees will be the good biological machines they are, and they'll continue to be good little biological machines (utterly devoid of meaning and the capacity to bring meaning) right up until the point the sun's expanding chromosphere engulfs the asylum called Earth.

And: when this universe finally contracts to a null point (or expands/attenuates itself into entropic 'nothingness') it will do so equally with or without 'mindful' witnesses.

Call me a nihilist...I can live with that. I just don't see the point in ignoring the obvious.

1-Reality exists independent of me.

2-My subjective experiencing of Reality dies with me, but this is not the death of Reality itself.

3-I'm not necessary to Reality's existence.

As M. Stirner wrote, 'I am everything to myself' a position I enthusiastically endorse, but my subjective valuing and possessing of my 'self' obligates the world/reality to jack-squat.

I know you do not get it henry, but there is no objectve experience of life...It is all dependent upon that single sinequanon of life... We look for objective truths and the best we can do is average out our combined subjective truths... Its late, and I did not get beyond your first predicate.. I'll read more tomorrow...But think of it... What objective proof do you have of your own existence??? If I deny it, can you prove it so I will accept it??? I you honestly cannot prove your own existence, then how much more trouble does proving my existence present???And why would you bother??? I do not think we would have near the use for forms that we do if we did not need to be reminded that we exist to have some sense of certainty...People salute, or say how do you do, and it reminds you that are some body...They also help to make that existence to day a fact by keeping you alive to testify...But who can say people in the past existed??? We say it; but what if we deny it??? What if we say Socrates was as much fiction as Frankenstein???And is that the problem??? For them it is, if they do not exist, then they cannot exist and they have no meaning no matter how many testify that they did once exist...Too often people die and their whole societies follow them into the grave... How many Romans or Greeks do we have??? People live in their homes, but they are long gone, and it is because of their failed forms, so that the very thing that should have ensured their existence ensured their demise...The words of Socrates as fiction live on, and the society he helped to destroy has long since perished...Were it no for so many losers trying to destroy their own societies with his words, we would not even know he existed... So did he exist... Did his world ever exist???Did those people live, and were they real???We think nothing of killing, and would kill the whole world... What is there besides a witness to say all we slaughter ever was???.. And when our turn comes, and we pass from the scene, who will say we were ever here??? Meaning and being are inseperable... Our lives are only as good as those who survive us, and baring that, we never did live, and the world dies for us all...Good night

"I know you do not get it henry, but there is no objectve experience of life..."

Yeah: I know this. That's why I keep talking about subjective perspective. Even a casual review of our conversation in this thread shows this.

But: the lack of 'objective experience of life' doesn't preclude the objective existence of reality.


"What objective proof do you have of your own existence???"

None: I never claimed I had any. And the question isn't relevant to our discussion. But: to my own, subjective, satisfaction, 'I' exist, choose, and act, in the world.


"If I deny it, can you prove it so I will accept it???"

Bluntly: if I slam you in the head with a shovel, you'd be hard-pressed to deny the existence of 'something' outside yourself. You might choose to interpret this 'something' in a variety of ways but -- again -- after I slam you in the head with a shovel, you'll have a hard time, I think, denying 'something' exists outside yourself.


"I you honestly cannot prove your own existence, then how much more trouble does proving my existence present???"

I see no difficulty in proving, to my satisfaction, you exist.

First: we -- you and me -- are carrying on 'this' conversation. That is: a phenomenon calling itself 'Fido' is engaged with me in this discussion. I know for a fact, by way of self-interrogation, 'you' aren't a figment of 'me'. So: 'you' (whatever you are) exist.

Second: if you were amenable, you could offer me your location. I could travel to you, have lunch or coffee with you, have a face-to-face conversation with you and, for me, this would be further verification of 'you' existing.


"But who can say people in the past existed???"

Using my Grandpap as example: I know he lived. He's dead now (now, history). He no longer exists (at least, not in a form that means anything). And yet I know he once existed.


Again: none of the above is relevant to our conversation.


You assert: "When I die the world dies... Grab a shovel and stay ready to bury yourself..."

Unless I'm wrong: what you're saying is, reality has no objective existence...the world is wholly dependent on 'mind' for its existence...when 'mind' is gone, reality is gone.

I counter: "No: when you die, the world -- as you experience it -- dies with you. I, however, should I outlive you, will continue to be in the world, live in the world.", and, "Even if each of us (all six billion plus) die right now, this second, the world/universe/reality is gonna keep right on ticking away."

That is: the world/reality exists independent of 'mind'.


"What if we say Socrates was as much fiction as Frankenstein???"

You, and anyone, should feel free to do just that. But: if you intend to live in the world in a sane way, you must acknowledge your belief in the fictional nature of Socrates (or the reality of Frankenstein's Creature) won't change facts about either.

---------- Post added at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------

To anyone with an interest: please, feel free to enter the conversation!

i am me. and you are only you because my mind created you.
jeje:bigsmile:

One what?...........

Thanks for the creation... First rate job... If I was the boss I would pay you...

---------- Post added 08-16-2009 at 09:35 PM ----------


One big one........

I am me, You are you, but if I am you then you are me. Then we are one person using different perspectives of myself/ourselves.

How is it people here are connecting everything? I would like to see the actual connection please.

I am not even sure that there is actually a me. I appears as though this is true but there are moments that I can not even determine if or when or where this so called me resides. Like in those breaking moments between awake and sleep, where the brain is shifting between unconsciousness and consciousness there seems to be a complete drop off of self awareness for just a brief moment. But it is in this moment where nothing can be distinguished clearly, not an me or not even another. Despite what it might sound like, it is my favorite moment and it is what I feel death would be like but more permenantly. So this me that I insist exists just seems to be a feed back loop of consciousness in my opinion. Yes that undermines the value I place on my existence but it in no way reduces the value put on life itself. After all if no one were around to see a sun set, would it no longer be beautiful? I say no, but then the materialists would chime in and make the claim it would be a waste though. Na, because it is only our awareness of it, which makes it such. If you are no longer aware, you no longer care.