The Absurd

[ndrs]

Personally I find that the main emotion evoked by all such absurdist ramblings is despair.

Because you don't fully understand it.. THat is also why you call it 'ramblings'.
The reason you find despair by such 'ramblings' are because you were grown up as a tool for the herd.
It is a sign of a lot of self-consciousness that a person can accept a fact such as his existence dying with his body. It is against his natural instincts to survive, but an absurdist overcomes it. Intelligence overcoming natural instincts...

Does the fact that two billion delusion idiots think we continue after death invalidate the idea? No it doesn't. The possibility exists. It is unproven of course. However, if your only reason for denying that possibility is that those people believe it, then you are the epitome of a brainwashed walking reflex.

My maths tell me this:
There are infinite possibilities of what life could be after death. If people believe there is heaven/hell after, that is one possibility. The chances of one out of a infinity are 0.
Of course, you could say the same thing about the chances of not existing at all. It is different though.. you know your (mental) existance started from nothing, so there is a higher chance it will end in nothing.

I don't believe in heaven or hell. Accepting the possibility that we may continue after death does not inherently mean acceptance of heaven, hell, or any religions. If you automatically assume it does, then this would be yet more evidence that you are a walking reflex.

I was just pointing out, how the idea of heaven/earth came about and what motivation someone had for creating it.

Wow. I'm happy for you. But you would be going against biology/evolution.

I just overcome biology/evolution completely. Following biology/evolution is for animals.

We do in fact have very good reason for going along with the way biology and evolution made us. We have good reason to understand it and accept it as an act of free will.

What's that good reason again? Survival? Look below.

In many cases, yes indeed, it is relative. Until you can think further than your high school classes. There are some things which are inherently "good" to all life, such as continuance of one's own genetic code. Killing your own offspring is bad; keeping it alive is good. Why? That's how life works. Deny it all you want, but you are alive. And as I said, we are social creatures, and co-operation offers the best cahnces for survival.

By absurdism, survival is not that important. You will die one day anyway. Thus whether you leave offsprings behind or not is not relevant.

Again: Justify that statement. You have failed to do so thus far.

It was meant as an over-exaggerated joke. THerefore the smile at the end.
But the fact that you worry about the other people left behind in this world and:

However, I may live with the satisfaction of hoping I have improved the world just a little. If so, I can be content by the time I die.

The fact that it directly affects your mood is another sign.

 

[ndrs]

BTW, this thread is linked to this.... It's interesting that everybody is thinking about life after death at the start of new year.

 

[Adam]

ndrs

Because you don't fully understand it.. THat is also why you call it 'ramblings'.

Oh yay. Another one who sees the light when the rest of us don't. Yippee...

You are the perfect example of 100% successful social brainwashing.

The reason you find despair by such 'ramblings' are because you were grown up as a tool for the herd.

You have yet to qualify either of these statements. You are beginning to resemble Whatsupyall. He, too, believes he alone sees the light, and the rest of us are ignorant. Support your statements or go join Whatsupyall.

It is a sign of a lot of self-consciousness that a person can accept a fact such as his existence dying with his body. It is against his natural instincts to survive, but an absurdist overcomes it. Intelligence overcoming natural instincts...

You are relying on assumption after assumption. Your entire perspective rests on the assumption that we do not continue after the body dies. Prove it, or else reconsider your words.

My maths tell me this:
There are infinite possibilities of what life could be after death. If people believe there is heaven/hell after, that is one possibility. The chances of one out of a infinity are 0.

I'd love to see how you can possibly justify your assignment of numerical values to this matter.

you know your (mental) existance started from nothing

That is yet another assumption. Please use rational propositions.

I just overcome biology/evolution completely. Following biology/evolution is for animals.

So you don't eat, drink, breathe? Your cells don't divide? Wow. Amazing.

By absurdism, survival is not that important. You will die one day anyway. Thus whether you leave offsprings behind or not is not relevant.

An integral part of the matter is... what? Take a guess. Removal of all material "meaning" and finding what meaning is left, if any. And as I described quite clearly - please deny it rationally if you can - there are meanings or purposes to klife, and there are those I find for myself.

It was meant as an over-exaggerated joke.

No, I was asking for justification of your words, which, you seem to be admitting, are pointless.

But the fact that you worry about the other people left behind in this world

Regarding responsbility. If you walk along the street and see a man trying to kid a woman to pieces with a knife, would you ignore it or intervene and kick the guy's arse? Biology and evolution created us as social animals. We live in societies, individuals co-operating and co-existing. Responsibility to others is hardwired into us through billions of years of life evolving on this planet. Some consider such biological imperatives bad things, to be overcome. I don't. They still offer the best chances for greatest production and achievement, the best chances for survival.

Rationally deny this.

The fact that it directly affects your mood is another sign.

It does not affect my mood. Bring me wine, then you may affect my mood.

 

[ndrs]

The reason you find despair by such 'ramblings' are because you were grown up as a tool for the herd.

You have yet to qualify either of these statements. You are beginning to resemble Whatsupyall. He, too, believes he alone sees the light, and the rest of us are ignorant. Support your statements or go join Whatsupyall.

This one is quite simple:
There is nothing left to despair about when your existance being stopped, if you don't feel you have any responsibilities. Is there? You seem to find responsibilities out of nowhere (or out of biology/evolution theory). And these seem to relate to 'common good'. You explain you take up these responsibilities as they are making you feel better (because it makes you content to know you left something behind in this world when you die).
I proved to you that it is NOT innate to care about the world when you die -- It doesn't affect, for example, me how the world is left when I die. Therefore (if it's not innate) it was implanted to you - by society/or your mother/or the army.

Oh yay. Another one who sees the light when the rest of us don't. Yippee...

Rest of us? It seems to me you are the only one in here that doesn't get it.. Or what this whole topic is about.

It is a sign of a lot of self-consciousness that a person can accept a fact such as his existence dying with his body. It is against his natural instincts to survive, but an absurdist overcomes it. Intelligence overcoming natural instincts...

You are relying on assumption after assumption. Your entire perspective rests on the assumption that we do not continue after the body dies. Prove it, or else reconsider your words.

Reconsider what words? How does my paragraph above depend on the assumption that we do not continue after the body dies. I think you might have quoted the wrong text.

I'd love to see how you can possibly justify your assignment of numerical values to this matter.

Which numerical value don't agree with? Infinity, or the 0?
Please tell your version of the numerical values.

you know your (mental) existance started from nothing

That is yet another assumption. Please use rational propositions.

OK.. what do you remember that happened before your birth? You being in another life?
Your memories only start since your early age. Therefore the existance of your mind, your mental individual starts only when your memory starts.

So you don't eat, drink, breathe? Your cells don't divide? Wow. Amazing.

This answer is so stupid.. I won't even bother to answer.

An integral part of the matter is... what? Take a guess. Removal of all material "meaning" and finding what meaning is left, if any. And as I described quite clearly - please deny it rationally if you can - there are meanings or purposes to klife, and there are those I find for myself.

Eh? What the fuck is this?
Please use logical sentences Adam..

Regarding responsbility. If you walk along the street and see a man trying to kid a woman to pieces with a knife, would you ignore it or intervene and kick the guy's arse? Biology and evolution created us as social animals. We live in societies, individuals co-operating and co-existing. Responsibility to others is hardwired into us through billions of years of life evolving on this planet. Some consider such biological imperatives bad things, to be overcome. I don't. They still offer the best chances for greatest production and achievement, the best chances for survival.

Responsibility to other is hardwired?
This is the most stupid thing I heard from you so far Adam..
Where did you get that from..
Cannibal aborigens have responsibility? RESPONSIBILITY IS HARDWIRED?

The fact that it directly affects your mood is another sign.

It does not affect my mood. Bring me wine, then you may affect my mood.

However, I may live with the satisfaction of hoping I have improved the world just a little. If so, I can be content by the time I die.

Satisfaction of hoping you have improved the world... brings you content by the time you die.
Being content is not a mood?

 

[Adam]

ndrs

This one is quite simple:
There is nothing left to despair about when your existance being stopped, if you don't feel you have any responsibilities.

There is no despair after death, if there is nothing after death, if you don't give a toss about anyone other than yourself. However, in two other states despair is perfectly valid: 1) during life, if you do give a damn about people or things other than yourself; 2) after death if we do not end.

I proved to you that it is NOT innate to care about the world when you die -- It doesn't affect, for example, me how the world is left when I die. Therefore (if it's not innate) it was implanted to you - by society/or your mother/or the army.

Please read back through your posts. You have not yet proved anything. Regarding natural or implanted behaviours: perhaps you can tell me why children born blind smile in the same way that seeing kids do?

Rest of us? It seems to me you are the only one in here that doesn't get it.. Or what this whole topic is about.

Fair enough. I disagree with you, that makes me wrong (though I am the only one of the two who has provided logical statements), which in turn makes you a facist. But okay...

It is a sign of a lot of self-consciousness that a person can accept a fact such as his existence dying with his body. It is against his natural instincts to survive, but an absurdist overcomes it. Intelligence overcoming natural instincts...

Reconsider what words? How does my paragraph above depend on the assumption that we do not continue after the body dies. I think you might have quoted the wrong text.

The entire paragraph in question concerns the ultimate end of a person upon the body's death - a propostition which is merely an assumption.

Which numerical value don't agree with? Infinity, or the 0?

Both. All. Any. Tell me how you arrived at those values.

Please tell your version of the numerical values.

I place no numerical values on such things. Doing so requires massive and absolutely baseless assumptions, which I do not care to make.

OK.. what do you remember that happened before your birth? You being in another life?

A man is an amnesiac. He remembers nothing before two weeks ago. Did he not exist before that point? What if, before that point, he was a murderer, or he discovered antigravity technology or such?

We have no evidence to support the idea of life beyond this corporeal coil. But we have no evidence to disprove it either. The lack of memory does not prove or disprove anything.

I just overcome biology/evolution completely. Following biology/evolution is for animals.

So you don't eat, drink, breathe? Your cells don't divide? Wow. Amazing.

This answer is so stupid.. I won't even bother to answer.

You are a very shortsighted individual. Think about it. First you claimed you were beyond the basic animal nature of human beings. When I proved otherwise with a simple question, you simply refuse to respond. Do you realise how that makes you seem?

You are not "beyond" anything. You are merely a young person assuming wisdom, elitism, and superiority where none exists. You are an animal, the same as George Bush, Usama Bin Laden, me, Cris, your neighbour's dog, and all the rest. You follow biology/evolution; you can not deny this. Your claim that "I just overcome biology/evolution completely" is clearly ridiculous.

Eh? What the fuck is this?
Please use logical sentences Adam..

I'll say it again:

An integral part of the matter is... what? Take a guess. Removal of all material "meaning" and finding what meaning is left, if any. And as I described quite clearly - please deny it rationally if you can - there are meanings or purposes to life, and there are those I find for myself.

Perhaps you can get someone to help you wth the big words.

Responsibility to other is hardwired?
This is the most stupid thing I heard from you so far Adam..
Where did you get that from..
Cannibal aborigens have responsibility? RESPONSIBILITY IS HARDWIRED?

I'm sorry Whatsupyall, if you missed class the year they taught anthropology, sociology, evolution, history... Please go away and read some of these topics, then return.

Being content is not a mood?

Did anyone say contentment is not a mood?

 

[The Marquis]

Re: Marquis

Originally posted by Adam
Well, I am not interested in semantic arguments about the meanings of the term "meaning".

Perhaps you should be. I use the word "meaning" in a philosophical context here. Biological imperatives, as I said, are not a reason in themselves to live - they are a catalyst.

No, you make assumptions. I may die with nothing; there may be nothing beyond that moment. However, I may live with the satisfaction of hoping I have improved the world just a little. If so, I can be content by the time I die.

Again, I ask you. If you accept that death is final (which seems to be the crux of the matter, and the point of this thread) then you have yet to give me a reason why your "meaning" has any validity. You have yet to explain why improving the world has any validity at all, except as a purpose for yourself and those who believe as you do.

Regarding responsbility. If you walk along the street and see a man trying to kid a woman to pieces with a knife, would you ignore it or intervene and kick the guy's arse? Biology and evolution created us as social animals. We live in societies, individuals co-operating and co-existing. Responsibility to others is hardwired into us through billions of years of life evolving on this planet. Some consider such biological imperatives bad things, to be overcome. I don't. They still offer the best chances for greatest production and achievement, the best chances for survival.

No. I consider it more a BIOS, firmware. Something the casual user rarely bothers to investigate, let alone have the courage to change.

And please don't make the assumption that you understand death when others don't. That is pure arrogance.

Actually, I made the assumption that you don't fully understand the finality of death. Appealing to the masses will not make your case any firmer.

As you've stated yourself, you admit the possibility of something beyond, whereas I do not. That admission assumes you have hope, and this gives you a reason to act as you do.

I'd love to see you attempt to rationalise that one. Please do.
Acceptance is a choice, an act of free will, based on my philosophies.

Poorly worded perhaps. Of course acceptance is a choice. To me, it means one no longer has the will or the courage to fight. A choice I could no more make than I could commit suicide.

Do you rage against the fact that you body needs oxygen and water? To you rage against the fact that you need food to survive? If so, you are an intellectual child.

I see no point in this whatsoever.

Useless rage with no purpose and no result is simply becoming a pathetic and pointless condition which serves no purpose. Accept and move on.

It is, in fact, quite absurd. But here is the rub, Adam. your reasons for acting as you do are no more valid or invalid than mine. I could describe you, and those like you as "a pathetic and pointless condition which serves no purpose" and be just as correct. You seem quite incapable of grasping this.

Then you have entirely missed the point of what I said. Go away and think about it for a while.

I don't think I did. You assume that seeking a reason is a reason in itself. I don't believe there are any reasons, and ask you why I should tilt at windmills. If you wish to be Don Quixote, be my guest. I would not deign to do so.

You've accused me of pure arrogance, and then claim that if I do not agree with what you've written I missed your point. I'm sure you'll see the hypocrasy in this.

 

[Adam]

Marquis

Perhaps you should be. I use the word "meaning" in a philosophical context here. Biological imperatives, as I said, are not a reason in themselves to live - they are a catalyst.

Biology/evolution shapes - at least partially - our behaviours and thoughts. There is no reason to ignore the pleasure and satisfaction and other emotions we feel based on it.

Again, I ask you. If you accept that death is final (which seems to be the crux of the matter, and the point of this thread) then you have yet to give me a reason why your "meaning" has any validity. You have yet to explain why improving the world has any validity at all, except as a purpose for yourself and those who believe as you do.

Why does improving the world have any validity? Three reasons:

• Biology/evolution creates in us good feelings if we do things beneficial to ourselves, our offspring, our community.
• Go outside and kill some people. Pretty soon you will be in prison, limiting both your general freedom and your ability to reproduce. Thus such behaviour is antithetical to human life today. Likewise, social behaviour is beneficial to you, now.
• http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8458

No. I consider it more a BIOS, firmware. Something the casual user rarely bothers to investigate, let alone have the courage to change.

Well, that is personal opinion of course. I agree, most people don't bother examining themselves.

Actually, I made the assumption that you don't fully understand the finality of death. Appealing to the masses will not make your case any firmer.

At least you admit you are making assumptions there.

As you've stated yourself, you admit the possibility of something beyond, whereas I do not. That admission assumes you have hope, and this gives you a reason to act as you do.

That is wrong. Accepting a possibility does not equal hoping that possibility is true. Again, assumptions.

It is, in fact, quite absurd. But here is the rub, Adam. your reasons for acting as you do are no more valid or invalid than mine. I could describe you, and those like you as "a pathetic and pointless condition which serves no purpose" and be just as correct. You seem quite incapable of grasping this.

You'd be surprised what I can grasp. More assumptions there.

I don't think I did. You assume that seeking a reason is a reason in itself. I don't believe there are any reasons, and ask you why I should tilt at windmills. If you wish to be Don Quixote, be my guest. I would not deign to do so.

1) I do indeed think that searching, even if there is no finding, is a noble activity and purpose. I think it is an inherent factor of human nature to seek answers.

2) I admire the character Don Quixote greatly.

You've accused me of pure arrogance, and then claim that if I do not agree with what you've written I missed your point. I'm sure you'll see the hypocrasy in this.

I ask you to rationalise and justify your words.

 

[ndrs]

This is starting to be difficult.. It seems I will have to explain most obvious things to you Adam. You simply don't try to understand other point of view. You can't seem to see the main point of a paragraph. Or you just simply ignore the statements which are against your statements.

There is no despair after death, if there is nothing after death, if you don't give a toss about anyone other than yourself. However, in two other states despair is perfectly valid: 1) during life, if you do give a damn about people or things other than yourself; 2) after death if we do not end.

I wasn't talking about despair after death..
I was talking about despair in relation to death. Or despair about dying.
So.. THere is nothign to despair about "dying" if you don't have any responsibilities to maintain. You seem to think you have some innate responsibilities. I am just saying absurdist person wouldn't have those responsibilities, so it wouldn't put him in despair.

Regarding natural or implanted behaviours: perhaps you can tell me why children born blind smile in the same way that seeing kids do?

Yes.. they smile because they feel responsibilities about the world and other people.. Try to learn MY post again.
Do you really think that babies feel responsibilities about other people.. They should since it is hardwired right????

ndrs:
It is a sign of a lot of self-consciousness that a person can accept a fact such as his existence dying with his body. It is against his natural instincts to survive, but an absurdist overcomes it. Intelligence overcoming natural instincts...

Reconsider what words? How does my paragraph above depend on the assumption that we do not continue after the body dies. I think you might have quoted the wrong text.
--- Adam:
You are relying on assumption after assumption. Your entire perspective rests on the assumption that we do not continue after the body dies. Prove it, or else reconsider your words.

The entire paragraph in question concerns the ultimate end of a person upon the body's death - a propostition which is merely an assumption.

HOW DOES IT RELY/DEPEND ON THIS ASSUMPTION?
I know it CONCERNS it. This whole topic concerns the fucking idea.

Which numerical value don't agree with? Infinity, or the 0?

Both. All. Any. Tell me how you arrived at those values.

How many possibilities is there of an unknown system, if you don't know anything about it? Any system? That's why it is infinite.
Probability theory can prove the fact that chances of some specific being right out of infinity are zero.

A man is an amnesiac. He remembers nothing before two weeks ago. Did he not exist before that point? What if, before that point, he was a murderer, or he discovered antigravity technology or such?

In terms of his individuality, with respect to his individuality now, he didn't. If he did, it wasn't necessarily HIM. A person is not necessarily considered by his body, it is his mind/memory that matters..
We know where the body comes from.. The body comes from the food that pregnant mother/the person in question eats. The mind/soul is basically his memories + the genes that his mother gave him.
I am saying that his memories are empty at his birth, since no one can remember anything before the birth. And the genes come from father/mother.

You are a very shortsighted individual. Think about it. First you claimed you were beyond the basic animal nature of human beings. When I proved otherwise with a simple question, you simply refuse to respond. Do you realise how that makes you seem?

You are not "beyond" anything. You are merely a young person assuming wisdom, elitism, and superiority where none exists. You are an animal, the same as George Bush, Usama Bin Laden, me, Cris, your neighbour's dog, and all the rest. You follow biology/evolution; you can not deny this. Your claim that "I just overcome biology/evolution completely" is clearly ridiculous.

What I mean by biology/evolution is the instinct part... You don't have to be too smart to understand it. I can overcome my instincts to some point, so can you (not just raping some woman) to some other poitn.
Common.. I obviously wouldn't say I am beyond dividing my cells/eating...

Perhaps you can get someone to help you wth the big words.

Yes.. I asked my 5 year old sister if she can understand what you are saying. She seems to be the same level of intelligence as you..

An integral part of the matter is... what? Take a guess. Removal of all material "meaning" and finding what meaning is left, if any. And as I described quite clearly - please deny it rationally if you can - there are meanings or purposes to life, and there are those I find for myself.

There are animal-type purpose for life. You are subscribing to it. I will try to find something more human...

I'm sorry Whatsupyall, if you missed class the year they taught anthropology, sociology, evolution, history... Please go away and read some of these topics, then return.

Wait.. you got confused again.. I am not Whatsupyall.. Maybe you should leave the wine for a while.
If you would be truly sensibile person, who isn't just interested in pissing me off, you would try to base what you said on reliable sources (internet will do). But because you are not this person, you just tell me to go find the proof myself, thinking I will waste the time searching for proof for your stupid argument.
You remind me of some Christian, saying "go and find proof there is god"..

Did anyone say contentment is not a mood?

Don't take my sentence out of context.. Read THE WHOLE FUCKING PARAGRAPH.

 

[The Marquis]

Re: Marquis

Originally posted by Adam
Biology/evolution shapes - at least partially - our behaviours and thoughts. There is no reason to ignore the pleasure and satisfaction and other emotions we feel based on it.

No, there isn't. Your assumption here is that everyone feels pleasure from the same things you do. Some of us gain no pleasure from being "good" as you see it.

Why does improving the world have any validity? Three reasons:

• Biology/evolution creates in us good feelings if we do things beneficial to ourselves, our offspring, our community.
• Go outside and kill some people. Pretty soon you will be in prison, limiting both your general freedom and your ability to reproduce. Thus such behaviour is antithetical to human life today. Likewise, social behaviour is beneficial to you, now.
• http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8458

The first argument I've covered. The second is stupid. Because I don't feel any responsibility for mankind in general I'm going to go out and kill them? Interesting leap of "logic". The third doesn't cover an awful lot beyond what has been discussed here, by the looks of things.

At least you admit you are making assumptions there.

Yes.. and so far I have no reason to believe it's an incorrect one.

That is wrong. Accepting a possibility does not equal hoping that possibility is true. Again, assumptions.

I don't believe you could accept the possibility of an afterlife without some hope that it is there. Given that you accept the possibility there is something more, are you honestly, really honestly, telling me you don't hope it is?

You'd be surprised what I can grasp. More assumptions there.

Yes, more assumptions. This one in particular... if you did grasp this point you wouldn't be arguing with me.

1) I do indeed think that searching, even if there is no finding, is a noble activity and purpose. I think it is an inherent factor of human nature to seek answers.

2) I admire the character Don Quixote greatly.

Arguing with you makes me feel like Don Quixote, at any rate.

I ask you to rationalise and justify your words.

I can imagine you in high school, asking your maths teacher to rationalise and justify that 2 and 2 equals four and not five. I won't be directing any more replies to you on this matter.

 

[Adam]

ndrs

I wasn't talking about despair after death..
I was talking about despair in relation to death. Or despair about dying.

Fair enough. Personally I suspect many people despair about death regardless of their religion or philosophy. Those who despair most, it seems to me, would be those who hold no hope of leaving a mark on the world or of continuing after death. I don't hope to continue after death; I merely accept it as a possibility. Personally I would like to leave a mark, preferably a beneficial one.

So.. THere is nothign to despair about "dying" if you don't have any responsibilities to maintain.

What if you simply enjoy living? Would not death be an end to enjoyment, to satisfaction? Methinks that might give rise to despair.

You seem to think you have some innate responsibilities. I am just saying absurdist person wouldn't have those responsibilities, so it wouldn't put him in despair.

Like solopsism, the attitude you are talking about is not believed, although it is often discussed. I know of no person able to honestly say they feel absolutely no responsibility. Can you?

Yes.. they smile because they feel responsibilities about the world and other people.. Try to learn MY post again.
Do you really think that babies feel responsibilities about other people.. They should since it is hardwired right????

The fact is, certain behaviours and tendencies are hardwired into us by our biology and evolution. I gave one example.

It is a sign of a lot of self-consciousness that a person can accept a fact such as his existence dying with his body. It is against his natural instincts to survive, but an absurdist overcomes it. Intelligence overcoming natural instincts...

HOW DOES IT RELY/DEPEND ON THIS ASSUMPTION?
I know it CONCERNS it. This whole topic concerns the fucking idea.

No need to resort to foul language.

You seem to be saying that an intelligence accepts that death is the ultimate end, when in fact an intelligence must accept only that death might be the ultimate end until proven otherwise. You even refer to accepting it as "a fact", when it is not a fact at all.

How many possibilities is there of an unknown system, if you don't know anything about it? Any system? That's why it is infinite.
Probability theory can prove the fact that chances of some specific being right out of infinity are zero.

Perhaps you can demonstrate your probability theory, type up for us here the equations you refer to. Show me how you define these matters with numerical values.

In terms of his individuality, with respect to his individuality now, he didn't. If he did, it wasn't necessarily HIM. A person is not necessarily considered by his body, it is his mind/memory that matters..
We know where the body comes from.. The body comes from the food that pregnant mother/the person in question eats. The mind/soul is basically his memories + the genes that his mother gave him.
I am saying that his memories are empty at his birth, since no one can remember anything before the birth. And the genes come from father/mother.

You're saying we are the sum of our memories only, using the case of an amnesiac as an example. When I have given an example that we are not (a blind child smiling). An amnesiac retains behaviours, things that make up parts of "him". These are with us from before birth. This gives a clear demonstration that certain human behaviours are based in biology/evolution. This, in turn, points us toward the idea that we have values and preferences based on biology/evolution.

Common.. I obviously wouldn't say I am beyond dividing my cells/eating...

Good. You are human, an animal. If born blind, you would most liekly smile and form other facial expressions as do others born blind. You would dislike sticking your hand in fire. You would appreciate someone finding food and water for you.

There are animal-type purpose for life. You are subscribing to it. I will try to find something more human...

Read the link I posted before: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8458

... you would try to base what you said on reliable sources (internet will do).

You could have done this in seconds.

 

[Adam]

Marquis

No, there isn't. Your assumption here is that everyone feels pleasure from the same things you do.

My assumption is that chemistry and social mechanics work in certain patterns for certain lifeforms.

Some of us gain no pleasure from being "good" as you see it.

Indeed. This comes under what we call "anti-social" behaviour. It is a well studied field.

Why does improving the world have any validity? Three reasons:

• Biology/evolution creates in us good feelings if we do things beneficial to ourselves, our offspring, our community.
• Go outside and kill some people. Pretty soon you will be in prison, limiting both your general freedom and your ability to reproduce. Thus such behaviour is antithetical to human life today. Likewise, social behaviour is beneficial to you, now.
• http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8458

The first argument I've covered. The second is stupid. Because I don't feel any responsibility for mankind in general I'm going to go out and kill them? Interesting leap of "logic". The third doesn't cover an awful lot beyond what has been discussed here, by the looks of things.

The first you attempted to cover, but not adequately.

The second demonstrates by extreme example that some behaviours are beneficial to you, and some aren't, and you do make choices based on such scales.

The third does indeed cover much of what is being discussed here. I suggest you read through it more.

Actually, I made the assumption that you don't fully understand the finality of death. Appealing to the masses will not make your case any firmer.

At least you admit you are making assumptions there.

Yes.. and so far I have no reason to believe it's an incorrect one.

Again you are pulling a Whatsupyall. You assume god exists (or that I don't understand to possible finality of death), and wait for others to prove god does not exist (or that I do in fact have an understanding of death, or what it means to me). You have yet to prove your assertion: that I do not understand death. Thus you are making exactly the same style of debate as we see from Whatsupyall. Do better.

That is wrong. Accepting a possibility does not equal hoping that possibility is true. Again, assumptions.

I don't believe you could accept the possibility of an afterlife without some hope that it is there. Given that you accept the possibility there is something more, are you honestly, really honestly, telling me you don't hope it is?

1) You make a massive assumption in thinking you know what I could or could not accept.

2) I do not hope for either an ultimate end or an afterlife. I'm not sure which is worse: eternal life of complete non-existence. If someone can convince me one is better than the other, I may hope for one.

You'd be surprised what I can grasp. More assumptions there.

Yes, more assumptions. This one in particular... if you did grasp this point you wouldn't be arguing with me.

I simply find your logic insufficient by far.

 

[ndrs]

I can imagine you in high school, asking your maths teacher to rationalise and justify that 2 and 2 equals four and not five. I won't be directing any more replies to you on this matter.

You can imagine Adam in high school? I can't imagine him getting that far...

 

[Adam]

And thus the kids, unable to manage logic, resort to the ad hominem...

 

[orthogonal]

"Children think an argument involves raised voices, anger, negative emotion. To argue with someone is an attempt to push him around verbally. But a philosophical argument is not like that...Philosophical argument, trying to get someone to believe something whether he wants to believe it or not, is not, I have held, a nice way to behave towards someone; also it does not fit the original motivation for studying or entering philosophy. That motivation is puzzlement, curiousity, a desire to understand, not a desire to produce uniformity of belief. Most people do not want to become thought-police. The philosophical goal of explanation rather than proof not only is morally better, it is more in accord with ones philosophical motivation."

Robert Nozick, pp. 4-5, Coercive Philosophy from his Philosophical Examinations

When I feel the blood begin to drain from my face I sometimes like to refer to the above quote from Nozick. I also remind myself that agreement in philosophy is death to discussion. If we all agreed, what on earth could we talk about: the weather?

Please, please, disagree with me! But at the same time, remember that even though we disagree, we're driven by the same motives. We just want to know what it's all about.

Epicurus thought that life's highest pleasure is found in discussing philosophy with friends under a tree. With that in mind, when you write to me please try to imagine that we're sitting under a tree on a hot day and I've just handed you a cold beer.

Cheers,

Michael

 

[EvilPoet]

Michael,

"With that in mind, when you write to me please
try to imagine that we're sitting under a tree on
a hot day and I've just handed you a cold beer."

Not much on beer or the heat but I do love trees and
nature type stuff. I can't speak for anyone else in this
thread but I have no problem with this request. I will
try to keep that in mind the next time I post a reply to
you.

Take care,
EvilPoet

 

[orthogonal]

Hi Xev,

What I see as the flaw with Absurdism is that it supposes that we're seperate from the rest of the universe. But we aren't seperate. We are the universe, observing itself, as Sagan would say.

If you are the universe and I am the universe, then we have two universes; and that's already one too many. You and I are not identical with the universe, we're each only a fractional part of the universe. Another distinction is that we can only observe what physicists call, "the observable universe," which is thought to have a finite radius of approximately 15 billion light-years. We can only empirically observe the observable universe.

And the universe is eternal. In an infinite amount of time, an infinite amount of permutations will take place. An infinite number of those permutations will lead to another me, in other circumstances, in the same circumstances, always existing and dying and existing and dying for eternity. I find more than enough comfort in this.

Please don't get too comfortable in tossing around those infinities, Xev! The concept of Infinity reeks of what Mark Twain called "...that sort of luminous intellectual fog which stands for clearness among the Germans." But even a native speaker of the German language (albeit with a Viennese dialect), Ludwig Wittgenstein warned us that:

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language."

Xev, what is your basis for believing that the Universe is eternal? Why should it be necessarily true that an infinite number of permutations would occur even if the Universe were eternal? I can imagine a universe of both infinite duration and possibility in which nothing occurs whatsoever.

The notions of Infinity and Nothingness have always been something of a philosophical "backdoor" for theology. They represent absolutes; the "stuff" of minds rather than worlds. Accordingly, we ought to be very careful how we apply these mental constructs to arguments about the world at-hand.

Theologians aside, philosophers have been wary of the belief that absolutes have a place in the world outside of the mind. The ancient Greek word for "infinity" is "aperion." It had a rather negative connotation. A dirty rag, for example, was aperion. Aristotle made the distinction between Absolute Infinity, which he thought did not exist, and Potential Infinity which he thought did exist. Similarly, Arthur Schopenhauer made the distinction between Absolute Nothingness (Nihil Negitivum), which does not exist, and Relative Nothingness (Nihil Privativum) which does. Henri Bergson wrote that Nothingness is nothing more than a "pseudo-idea, a mere word."

I'll be merciful and keep this short, but I would like to mention a fascinating book on the subject of infinity in mathematics by a contemporary philosopher of mathematics, Brian Rotman, titled: Ad Infinitum: The Ghost in Turing’s Machine: Taking God Out of Mathematics and Putting the Body Back in: An Essay in Corporeal Semiotics.. You can find a review of the book at:

http://www.mathematica-journal.com/issue/v4i1/reviews/chapnick/20-21_Chapnick.mj.pdf

I never really empathized with the search for meaning. For me, "meaning" has always seemed to be just an opiate.

"Grau, tenerer freund, ist alle Theorie,
Und gruen des Lebens Goldner Baum"

"Gray, dear friend, are all theories,
And green is the golden tree of life."

Goethe had absurdity figured out. The way the orange sunlight strikes the rime covered mountain in the morning is deeply meaningful to me. I know that rime ice is simply frozen fog. I know that the low angle of the morning sun is responsible for the orange light. I know, I know...and yet I think:

"Verweile doch, du bist so schön!
And if we are not immediately damned,
the stars move still, time runs, the clock will strike.
But it is open to us to regret each minute as it passes."

Michael

 

[ndrs]

What if you simply enjoy living? Would not death be an end to enjoyment, to satisfaction? Methinks that might give rise to despair.

Not necessarily.. If you stop existing you stop worrying about it. You don't worry about the stop to satisfaction anymore.
Despair is illogical in this case exactly for this reason.

Like solopsism, the attitude you are talking about is not believed, although it is often discussed. I know of no person able to honestly say they feel absolutely no responsibility. Can you?

Responsibility is only there for me because it helps me survive. Hamilton's rule that you specified below, doesn't work necessarily for every human.
Solopsism? I believed it in it myself for quite a while. It can be believed.

The fact is, certain behaviours and tendencies are hardwired into us by our biology and evolution. I gave one example.

Certain ones, yes.. An example, which is irrelevant..

You seem to be saying that an intelligence accepts that death is the ultimate end, when in fact an intelligence must accept only that death might be the ultimate end until proven otherwise. You even refer to accepting it as "a fact", when it is not a fact at all.

Yes, I meant it accepting it ultimately, therefore accepting it as a fact.
You are suggesting not being sure, as in standing on the fence? I wouldn't say that is a choice. Of course, it there would be proof otherwise, you can change your mind.

Perhaps you can demonstrate your probability theory, type up for us here the equations you refer to. Show me how you define these matters with numerical values.

http://omega.albany.edu:8008/JaynesBook.html
Elementary sampling theory.

P(H_i|B) = 1/N, 1 <= i <= N
Here B is a set N number of H'es.
P is the probability function.
There is equal chance of each H being right. (as it is in this system, since we don't know anything about it).
Since we have infinite number of possibilities for afterlife (we know nothing about it). N is approaching infinity.
then P(H_i|B) is approaching zero.
------------------------------------------

You're saying we are the sum of our memories only, using the case of an amnesiac as an example. When I have given an example that we are not (a blind child smiling). An amnesiac retains behaviours, things that make up parts of "him". These are with us from before birth. This gives a clear demonstration that certain human behaviours are based in biology/evolution. This, in turn, points us toward the idea that we have values and preferences based on biology/evolution.

We have no evidence to support the idea of life beyond this corporeal coil. But we have no evidence to disprove it either. The lack of memory does not prove or disprove anything.

Perhaps birth is a bad word.. Conceive is a better term.
You don't exist before being conceived, because:
1. Your genes are not formed.
2. You don't have any memories (there is no brain to store them).
That was the original argument BTW. I was saying since we start from nothing, there is a higher chance we will end at nothing.

Read the link I posted before: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...=&threadid=8458

You didn't post a link there.

... you would try to base what you said on reliable sources (internet will do).

You could have done this in seconds.

OK.. Hamilton's rule.. It still is more related to your close family members. Responsibility to other non-close humans is nearly zero.

And thus the kids, unable to manage logic, resort to the ad hominem...

You shouldn't take it so personally Adam.

 

[orthogonal]

Hi EvilPoet,

Ah yes, but what about what you did on the mountain? Did you not revolt by choosing to walk?

I think Daniel Dennett would have said that I asserted my Free-Will in breaking out of a pointless loop. In his book, Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting, Dennett has us consider the behavior of the digger wasp or Sphex ichneumoneus:

"Dennett describes the mechanical behavior of the digger wasp Sphex. This insect follows a series of genetically programmed steps in preparing for egg laying. If an experimenter interrupts one of these steps the wasp will repeat that step again. For an animal like a wasp, this process of repeating the same behavior can go on indefinitely, the wasp never seeming to notice what is going on. This is the type of mindless, pre-determined behavior is what people can avoid. Given the chance to repeat some futile behavior endlessly, people can notice the futility of doing so, and by act of free will do something else."

Taken from a dicussion of Elbow Room at
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/8870/philosophicus/Elbows.html

Now, my task was to arrive at the little hut on the top of the mountain. My tool was the snowmachine. But the snowmachine kept burying itself in the snowdrifts. I would dig it out, ride it for ten meters and promptly bury it again. At some point I remembered the overarching goal was not to ride the snowmobile, but to arrive at the transmitter hut. I broke out of the sphexish loop. An automata might still be out there digging a canal in the snow for the machine.

But we humans get into sphexish loops all the time. For example, we must have money to provide for our basic needs. So we sell portions of our life in order that we might maintain our life. So far, so good. The sphexish problem arises when we forget why we needed the money in the first place. We put our heads down and make money as though that were the overarching goal. I can imagine an Alien world looking down on us humans, locked in our money/trinkets/baubles loop, the same as we humans look down on the Sphex wasps in their egg-laying loop. Henry David Thoreau was one who tried to shake us free from the loop, alas, without much luck.

"If I should sell both my forenoons and afternoons to society, as most appear to do, I am sure that for me there would be nothing left worth living for. I trust that I shall never thus sell my birthright for a mess of pottage."

From Thoreau's, Life Without Principle http://www.erraticimpact.com/~american/html/thoreau_life_without.htm

Michael

 

[Xev]

Orthogonal:

If you are the universe and I am the universe, then we have two universes; and that's already one too many.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you - by "we are the universe" I meant that we are an integral part of it.

Xev, what is your basis for believing that the Universe is eternal? Why should it be necessarily true that an infinite number of permutations would occur even if the Universe were eternal? I can imagine a universe of both infinite duration and possibility in which nothing occurs whatsoever.

True, quite possible. But I find the concept ugly, and somewhat unlikely based on current theories of the universe.

The notions of Infinity and Nothingness have always been something of a philosophical "backdoor" for theology. They represent absolutes; the "stuff" of minds rather than worlds. Accordingly, we ought to be very careful how we apply these mental constructs to arguments about the world at-hand.

As you wish, but I'm not very familiar with or interested in the philosophy of infinity or nothingness. My only background there is mathematical, not philosophical.

*Smiles*

I'm more a practical philosopher than anything else. I agree with the Satanic philosophy of living forever through fulfillment of the ego. As far as I am concerned, if I die free, I'll have done all I truely wanted.

And it comes down to this:

"And if I can't have everything
Just give me a taste"

Really, metaphysics bores me to tears. I'll shut up now.

 

[EvilPoet]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the reply.

"I broke out of the sphexish loop. An automata might
still be out there digging a canal in the snow for the
machine."

What is the difference between you and an automata?
Why would you brake out of the sphexish loop and the
automata not?

"I can imagine some Alien world looking down on us humans
locked in the money/trinkets/baubles loop as we humans look
down on the Sphex wasps."

If they were far enough away they probably couldn't tell the
difference. Everything is relative.

"Henry David Thoreau, was one who tried to shake us free
from the loop, alas, without much luck."

Not just Thoreau - I think a lot of people have tried over the ages.
Methinks we humans can be just a wee bit thick-headed sometimes.
Allow me to quote myself. It's from a poem I wrote many, many,
moons ago.

"We are like puppets on a string, lemmings going out to sea.
Never being more then we deem or doom ourselves to be."