Nothing really matters..

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Enmos, Nov 20, 2007.

  1. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I wouldn't exactly call 'somehow' defined though..
    What I want to know is what these conditions are and how they come to be.
    It seems to me the is important to the discussion and I fear vital..

    The point is: What is value materialistically seen ?

    But does the brain value 'part of it self', or does some part of the brain value other parts of the brain ? And, if so, can this part also value itself ?

    It was..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That was kind of intentional.. not fully though

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This is what I mean

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    p) when I say the words aren't working with me on this.

    Oh, I do get it.. and it's a constant source of irritation.. on both sides I am sure..


    I have said it before but I'll will repeat it here:
    What I have to say about meaning does not in any way nullify it in the subjective sense. Meaning is real to us, and living things or at least humans seem needy of it. The feeling of purpose and meaning are the result of evolution and thus (more than likely) a very important phenomenon of the brain.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
    Your philosophy, for example, would have no more or less value than essentialist ones or theist ones that posit a central or overarching value. In fact, since less believe your philosophy, it could be argued that its value is more periperhal. Do you believe that?

    Or do you believe that people would be better off if they understood your philosophy?

    And isn't this a bit like thinking Shakespeare.....?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Wes, I actually believe that we pretty much agree on everything.

    The only thing that differs between our view is that I put livings things with the rest of nature while you say they have something special.

    This poses a problem for me though.
    What about living things that have no brain ?
    Do they have a perspective ? Why, or why not ?

    If they have how does it come about if not by the brain as you have described for humans ?

    If not, what is the essential difference between a single celled organism and the cells of humans in this regard ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Living things with no brain, would be lifeforms like plants, paramecium(s), amoeba, any form of life that hasn't evolved neurons...?

    So does something with no kind of "brain"--have a perspective?
    Depends on how perspective gets classified. They can't have a "neural perspective" (no neurons), so they'd have a "biochemical perspective"...?

    These things behave, or they exhibit tropism. Is a phototropic organism, like say, cyanobacteria "aware" that there's a bit of light somewhere? Or is a tree? What happens when there isn't any (night time)?
     
  8. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162

    Why limit it to a 'biochemical perspective' at least if this is some contrast with 'us'.

    Plants feel their way through the ground with their roots.

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/plant roots have sense of touch/1677452

    Whose to say they do not have very literal perspectives but slower ones then ours.

    Scientists or Western thinkers or what have you have had a very hard time accepting that beings that are not white men can think and are subjects. Slowly over history women, other races and animals have been granted subjectivity and intelligence, feelings and intention. (Descartes, that jerk, getting left in the dust). The trend is toward the recognition of more nouns having consciousness and intention. I see no reason to be sure this trend is finished.
     
  9. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Well the whole value thing is 'to whom' in this case me, so since its utility to me is pretty high I value it quite a bit, but simultaneously think I'm pretty full of shit when contrasted with lots of things. Some theists have shown interest in my ramblings, most not... though that's here. Usually in a one on one in person with theists that I've encountered there's a nice exchange of ideas. Not always of course. But yeah most people that exist have no knowledge of me or my thoughts, so I'd say just by lacking exposure my philosophy wholly lacks value to most humans, yes. And I think I'm probably too much of a pussy to want the responsibility of having it exposed large scale anyway, so.... *shrug*

    Definately, in what i just said above. More importantly perhaps, I honestly doubt it could be of much utility to most people - at least directly. Hmm. I'm not sure about that. But yeah, peripheral? I can't see how it isn't.

    Hmmm. That's hard to say. "how things are" would seem to detract from the possibility of people being "better off" for understanding the flow of my mind. I'm not sure "most people" considering a generalized "human circumstance" idea that I have, would be better off even understanding their own flow of mind better, as it would hinder them in performing what is necessary to perform their daily ritual of survival as it's come to be for them. In fact, I think philosophy of mind in general is perhaps beyond the possibility of comprehension for people to whom it was an opportunity cost of long ago.

    Not sure what you mean. If you mean I talk too much then yes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2008
  10. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Mostly yeah, I think anyway - ceptin of course you're a dirty materialist with a closed mind.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    lol

    I never called it special. Oh wait I think I did. It's special to me, and a mystery to science.

    I haven't reached a conclusion that I 'stick with' on that issue. I think 'maybe', then tend to think 'not', at least not in the same way I generally use it. I can't determine if there is an abstract component to a plant (in and of the plant). There might be? Brains however, I think tend to form egoes of perhaps a very, very simplistic sort, growing in kind with brains or perhaps particular components of brains.

    One can only hypothesize and I doubt you'd really want to hear my hypothesis - though I can only really think of one possible reason that at this time there is no way to confirm.

    The degree to which "abstract space" is utilized to the end of "survival".
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2008
  11. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Is there another kind of perspective? Isn't "neural perspective" just 'advanced biochemical perspective'?

    I don't think chemistry can have a perspective, you need the "bio" in there. Whatever (or wherever) it might be.
     
  12. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Seriously though, biochemistry is just a kind of chemistry.. but chemistry nonetheless..
     
  13. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yep, and they can be compare to separate cells of, for instance, a human in this regard (the perspective thing).

    We seriously need a working definition of perspective..
     
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I am, aren't I ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Ok, something different then.. that separates it from the rest of nature, whatever it is.
    I really think that at the molecular level living things do not differ from inanimate nature, and I am sure they don't at the atomic level..

    What about bacteria ?

    I want to hear it if you don't expect my to reply to it..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    How does that differ for the different organisms, 'brainy' and brainless ones.. ?
     
  15. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
    Biochemistry is a way of looking at experience derived from experience and imagined by relating ideas to experience. I don't want my foundation to be derived. Something derived can inform my experience and perpspective but it cannot, by definition be metaphysically root.
     
  16. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
    No. I meant if you believed your philosophy had a value beyond your own appreciation of it and the enjoyment or use a few people have had with it, then I think I could make a case for Shakespeare having greater value.

    But you did not disagree about your own philosophy.

    Now that we have reached this point, where it seems you acknowledging that your ideas have little universal value - because in fact there is no such thing - do you question at all what you are doing here. I had the impression that part of what you were doing was in a sense spreading the word. It would seem like you are simply enjoying yourself.
     
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Believing something has value doesn't make it so. One can on some level believe in something having value while knowing that in reality it does not.
     
  18. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Your original post mentioned the grand scheme of things. I don't believe anything matters in the least in that context. But on a personal level things matter to us. We value family, friends, activities which give us pleasure and so on but I don't see that having subjective values conflicts with your opening statement.I cannot imagine anyone living without personal values. It's simply foolish to suppose that what matters to me is of the slightest significance in the grand scheme of things.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2008
  19. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
    Perhaps while 'thinking' it does not, or probably does not. I cannot see how you could know. This would imply you have an objective perspective. But I am sure Wes has taken this up, and better than I just did.

    Also the position you are putting forward, if I take it as true, would indicate that your philosophy has no more value than mine. I suspect somehow that you don't believe that.
     
  20. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    This is exactly what I meant to say.
    It appears you and I have the same views about this

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Actually, Wes agrees with me on this.. err.. I think so at least..

    I do

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Neither philosophy has any real value.
    Mine has value to me and so has yours.. but to anyone else it may very well have no value at all.
     
  22. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,162
    So it really isn't true, per se, your idea, it just has value to you.
     
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Here are two posts from a thread I started long ago that explain my thinking a bit, and I'll get back with direct response and some more links after a bit. From short thread titled "abstract dimension":

    Another short-lived thread to a similar end:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47154
     

Share This Page