|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 15:56:29 GMT
Here are some questions to try if you think your mad enough and fancy going round in circles in your head. I'd be interested to hear your attempts.
1. If everyone in the world was free, then would the concept of freedom ever have been created?
2. Is a key still a key if there is nothing to unlock?
3. Why are fools and fanatics so certain of themselves, yet wiser people are full of doubts?
4. Why is there something rather than nothing at all?
5. If two people who have all the same experiences disagree about some matter of fact has at least one of them violated some rule of good reasoning?
6. Are the things that are valuable, valuable because we value them or do we value them because they are valuable?
7. Since my acts are caused by my choices and my choices caused by my beliefs and desires and my beliefs and desires are not in my direct control, how can it be that my acts are free?
These two could haunt you for the rest of your lives so beware!!!
8. Everything in the universe is supposed to be made of entities called "atoms". Therefore, the brain is made of atoms. The brain is presumably the mechanism through which we perceive (and attain our understanding of) the universe. But, how can we gain any real understanding of the universe (which, since the universe is made of atoms, is equivalent to gaining an understanding of atoms) by using the very entities (atoms, which make up the brain) that we're trying to understand? - Sounds very circular huh!
9. Where are we? It appears that we are on Earth, which circles around a star, which is part of a galaxy, etc. But, we know this only because we perceive this with our various senses. I could argue that this perception is analogous to a three dimensional motion picture that's merely in our brains (our brains are presumably the place where our sense impressions are interpreted). Certainly, we can't be located inside our mere perceptions. So, where are we?
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 16:05:10 GMT
Did you write these?
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 16:09:50 GMT
Some, i only nicked a couple directly off t'internet. Others i've been wondering about, have heard before or been discussed in Theory of Knowledge class. I don't imagine any of them are new and unique, fancy answering them Ben?
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 16:15:57 GMT
1. If everyone in the world was free, then would the concept of freedom ever have been created?
A bit like 'if a tree falls ina forest this one..." I say yes, you have to remember freedom is just a word, the actual concept and idea would always be there and we would all be living it.
2. Is a key still a key if there is nothing to unlock?
Depends which key you mean, i'm going to assume you don't mean key as in "he's a key player for them." SO in the case of you meaning a key to unlock a door for example then no, if it doesn't open anything it's a piece of metal.
3. Why are fools and fanatics so certain of themselves, yet wiser people are full of doubts?
Because the wise are always their own worst critic. How can you gain knowledge if you don't question yourself or allow others to question you?
4. Why is there something rather than nothing at all?
Blind luck, i'm sure there are areas between parts of the multiverse where by chance alone, there is nothing.
5. If two people who have all the same experiences disagree about some matter of fact has at least one of them violated some rule of good reasoning?
Maybe, people are genetically different but this does amount to IQ which helps in reasoning. This is a biological question rather than a philosophical question. People deal with different situations in different ways.
6. Are the things that are valuable, valuable because we value them or do we value them because they are valuable?
Sentimental value is something we should hold ourselves, unfortunately today people hold things in value because society leads you to believe that certain things are sentimentally valuable. In terms of market value then it's what the buyer is willing to pay.
7. Since my acts are caused by my choices and my choices caused by my beliefs and desires and my beliefs and desires are not in my direct control, how can it be that my acts are free?
Question isn't the most valid, your beliefs and desires are in your control, it's important not to confuse the word desire with the word instinct which either you or the questions originator seems to have done.
I need more time for the other two.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 16:26:24 GMT
8. Everything in the universe is supposed to be made of entities called "atoms". Therefore, the brain is made of atoms. The brain is presumably the mechanism through which we perceive (and attain our understanding of) the universe. But, how can we gain any real understanding of the universe (which, since the universe is made of atoms, is equivalent to gaining an understanding of atoms) by using the very entities (atoms, which make up the brain) that we're trying to understand? - Sounds very circular huh!
When studying atoms in the universe we do not look at the atom as a sum of all it's parts. The properties of atoms are governed by things such as size of nucleus, number of protons, number of electrons, distance of electrons from nucleus, electron shielding. All this taken into accout you get atoms which behave differently to one another. The atoms in our brain are, configured if you will, in a different way to the atoms that make up the universe. Obviously there is going to be some crossover so then you must look at the way the constituent, elements, atoms and compounds work in your brain. It is different to the way they work in the rest of the universe. So now we have established that our brains and the rest of the universe have different functions it becomes easier to understand. The question is difficult because it isn't easy to differentiate between atoms, the differentiation is in fact what makes the universe work. Now it becomes a less challenging idea.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 16:27:36 GMT
Nine is going to require a lot more thought.
|
|
|
Post by thefullback on Feb 20, 2008 16:28:14 GMT
This is definitely in your territory Ben ... I will try to answer once I'm sure I've understood the questions .. that will be a success in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 16:29:21 GMT
I like those answers Ben, well reasoned and considered as per usual from you. Very good point on number 3, i suppose it's like true wisdom is acknowledging that there's always something to learn.
I would challenge number 4 however, i don't think it is blind luck. Surely if there was nothingness then no-one would know. It's the existance of something that leads to the possibility of the sheer concept of nothing. Without something, nothing wouldn't exist - it's merely a byproduct.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 16:29:23 GMT
I've now released i've misread question 6. sorry Luke, i'll re-do it in a minute.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 16:30:13 GMT
Nine is going to require a lot more thought. Good I'm particularly proud of that one!
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 16:32:34 GMT
8. Everything in the universe is supposed to be made of entities called "atoms". Therefore, the brain is made of atoms. The brain is presumably the mechanism through which we perceive (and attain our understanding of) the universe. But, how can we gain any real understanding of the universe (which, since the universe is made of atoms, is equivalent to gaining an understanding of atoms) by using the very entities (atoms, which make up the brain) that we're trying to understand? - Sounds very circular huh! When studying atoms in the universe we do not look at the atom as a sum of all it's parts. The properties of atoms are governed by things such as size of nucleus, number of protons, number of electrons, distance of electrons from nucleus, electron shielding. All this taken into accout you get atoms which behave differently to one another. The atoms in our brain are, configured if you will, in a different way to the atoms that make up the universe. Obviously there is going to be some crossover so then you must look at the way the constituent, elements, atoms and compounds work in your brain. It is different to the way they work in the rest of the universe. So now we have established that our brains and the rest of the universe have different functions it becomes easier to understand. The question is difficult because it isn't easy to differentiate between atoms, the differentiation is in fact what makes the universe work. Now it becomes a less challenging idea. Extremely impressive - have a goal. I felt like crying when i first read that question I suppose it does work on the principle that all atoms are the same and behave in the same manner - whcih of course they don't.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 16:36:20 GMT
I poo me pants when i read it, that's why i needed a few minutes.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 16:38:19 GMT
I like those answers Ben, well reasoned and considered as per usual from you. Very good point on number 3, i suppose it's like true wisdom is acknowledging that there's always something to learn. I would challenge number 4 however, i don't think it is blind luck. Surely if there was nothingness then no-one would know. It's the existance of something that leads to the possibility of the sheer concept of nothing. Without something, nothing wouldn't exist - it's merely a byproduct. No, if nothing exists then nothing exists. The whole premise is that nothing exists, which obviously doesn't require existence.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 16:40:02 GMT
And the premise that nothing exists only exists because their is something to create it - requiring existance.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 16:44:19 GMT
Nothingness is not a premise or a concept, it's an actuality. In all likelehood nothing exists outside of the boundaries of this universe until the next one begins. That nothingness is detached from our universe so does not know the concept of existence, yet we know that existence, is.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 16:44:41 GMT
This should get thread of the year next awards.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 16:55:47 GMT
Certainly profound stuff and Bismarck hasn't even had his say yet!!
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 17:07:45 GMT
Nothingness is not a premise or a concept, it's an actuality. In all likelehood nothing exists outside of the boundaries of this universe until the next one begins. That nothingness is detached from our universe so does not know the concept of existence, yet we know that existence, is. But we don't know nothingness, there is always something, so therefore it is a concept as opposed to an actuality. We presume that there is nothingness but without existance, that idea of nothingness would not exist. Without something there is no nothingness, so what there is when something is not there is indeterminable - we label it as the concept of nothingness, not an actuality Lets say that, hypothetically, it is an actuality, without something it would still not exist, even as a premise. If everything was 'nothingness', then surely it would amount something - or at least be indeterminable. Which, eventually i suppose leads on to the question of 'if something is indeterminable does it exist at all or is it just a concept?' This is fun!
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Feb 20, 2008 17:24:54 GMT
Some, i only nicked a couple directly off t'internet. Others i've been wondering about, have heard before or been discussed in Theory of Knowledge class. I don't imagine any of them are new and unique, fancy answering them Ben? Cheeky sod....you bollocked me for that......
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Feb 20, 2008 17:28:26 GMT
Certainly profound stuff and Bismarck hasn't even had his say yet!! Love this kind of thread.....although you percieve me as a clever bastard......I am not the Dali Lama........or Arover
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Feb 20, 2008 17:32:28 GMT
Right.....I will post a question per regular.......
Ben-What is more important in a song that has both words and music, the words or the music? Why?
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 18:10:11 GMT
Nothingness is not a premise or a concept, it's an actuality. In all likelehood nothing exists outside of the boundaries of this universe until the next one begins. That nothingness is detached from our universe so does not know the concept of existence, yet we know that existence, is. But we don't know nothingness, there is always something, so therefore it is a concept as opposed to an actuality. We presume that there is nothingness but without existance, that idea of nothingness would not exist. Without something there is no nothingness, so what there is when something is not there is indeterminable - we label it as the concept of nothingness, not an actuality Lets say that, hypothetically, it is an actuality, without something it would still not exist, even as a premise. If everything was 'nothingness', then surely it would amount something - or at least be indeterminable. Which, eventually i suppose leads on to the question of 'if something is indeterminable does it exist at all or is it just a concept?' This is fun! We do know nothingness, we can observe nothingness (sort of!) in a laboratory. A vacuum is nothing and could exist without something being there. A lot of what you said here points to nothingness "without existance, the idea of nothingness would not be there." My point exactly, without existance things don't exist even concepts. Nothingness is the only thing that does not require existance to... erm... exist in a non-existant kind of way. Another question in similar, 'yin-yang' way. Can there be good without evil?
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 18:25:31 GMT
I think that without existance, even nothingness cannot exist because it is a concept and as you rightly say concepts don't exist without existance. In relation to my original question, this means that something exists instead of nothing because nothing is dependent on something existing - nothing cannot exist without something hence why there is something instead of nothing.
I guess Ben we'll have to agree to disagree whether nothing can exist without something - intriguing stuff though.
And Bismarck or any other members, what are your opinions on any of the questions i originally posted?
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 18:29:02 GMT
There cannot be good without evil because they are mutually dependent. How do you know what evil, if everything is good? And if evil doesn't exist then good can't exist meaning that what we in a world of good and evil would perceive as a world of good is actually a world where neither good nor evil exist.
So, basically it's either both or neither, which sounds impossible but when reasoned out is logical. Of course that now begs the question whether reasoning is faulty no matter how 'perfect' and what is logic? It could go on for ever - which is what i find so fascinating, as have millions before me.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 18:30:45 GMT
I think that without existance, even nothingness cannot exist because it is a concept and as you rightly say concepts don't exist without existance. In relation to my original question, this means that something exists instead of nothing because nothing is dependent on something existing - nothing cannot exist without something hence why there is something instead of nothing. I guess Ben we'll have to agree to disagree whether nothing can exist without something - intriguing stuff though. And Bismarck or any other members, what are your opinions on any of the questions i originally posted? I feel your making it a bit more complicated than it needs to be, forget what's been said and look at it this way. If nothing exists what is there? There's only one conclusion that we can make if we follow simple logic (that's all we require here). The main bone of contention is what nothing is. You think it's a concept (which can't exist except as chemical signals in the brain) I think nothing doesn't need a concept or anything else to be (exsist isn't he right word).
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 18:42:15 GMT
9. Where are we? It appears that we are on Earth, which circles around a star, which is part of a galaxy, etc. But, we know this only because we perceive this with our various senses. I could argue that this perception is analogous to a three dimensional motion picture that's merely in our brains (our brains are presumably the place where our sense impressions are interpreted). Certainly, we can't be located inside our mere perceptions. So, where are we?
We aren't located inside our perceptions. I feel that again we need to diffrentiate here. We don't precieve our brain, we percieve effects whether they occur inside or outside the body. The film analogy is fairly poor. A film is a thing we can percieve because it is nothing more than a product of light on pigmentation, something we percieve by sight, it isn't merely in our brains, it is irrefutably there.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 18:47:36 GMT
Right.....I will post a question per regular....... Ben-What is more important in a song that has both words and music, the words or the music? Why? I think this is psychological rather than philosopical. There's no right or wrong here, it's purely subjective and it depends on how our brains percieve sound, words, rythms and then how it organises this into something we can recognise and choose an opinion on.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 18:52:46 GMT
I think that without existance, even nothingness cannot exist because it is a concept and as you rightly say concepts don't exist without existance. In relation to my original question, this means that something exists instead of nothing because nothing is dependent on something existing - nothing cannot exist without something hence why there is something instead of nothing. I guess Ben we'll have to agree to disagree whether nothing can exist without something - intriguing stuff though. And Bismarck or any other members, what are your opinions on any of the questions i originally posted? I feel your making it a bit more complicated than it needs to be, forget what's been said and look at it this way. If nothing exists what is there? There's only one conclusion that we can make if we follow simple logic (that's all we require here). The main bone of contention is what nothing is. You think it's a concept (which can't exist except as chemical signals in the brain) I think nothing doesn't need a concept or anything else to be (exsist isn't he right word). I see what your saying but since to us there is always something, then nothing cannot be except in the form of an idea or concept. It is not a physical thing. And from there we know where it goes. The only way nothingness could be is if concepts and ideas are an actuality, if they exist - which opens up a whole other can of worms, in which surely everything exists.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 19:00:33 GMT
9. Where are we? It appears that we are on Earth, which circles around a star, which is part of a galaxy, etc. But, we know this only because we perceive this with our various senses. I could argue that this perception is analogous to a three dimensional motion picture that's merely in our brains (our brains are presumably the place where our sense impressions are interpreted). Certainly, we can't be located inside our mere perceptions. So, where are we? We aren't located inside our perceptions. I feel that again we need to diffrentiate here. We don't precieve our brain, we percieve effects whether they occur inside or outside the body. The film analogy is fairly poor. A film is a thing we can percieve because it is nothing more than a product of light on pigmentation, something we percieve by sight, it isn't merely in our brains, it is irrefutably there. Right here goes, you may have a point about the film analogy, i was trying to make the idea more accessible - especially to myself, putting my ideas in a recognisable form. You have admitted that we perceive effects, so surely that leads to our brain and its perception of Earth orbiting a star etc. That makes everything stemming from that influenced by our perceptions, meaning that we are in fact located within our perceptions. That of course cannot be as perceptions are not physical forms (just like concepts and ideas), leaving us with the conclusion that, well, we don't know where we are!! You could argue that we are located in nothingness, living within our perceptions but that would imply the existance of nothingness, which we have been been debating for the past few hours. Perhaps everything leads back to the existance (or not) of nothingness? - a very sobering thought.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 19:03:15 GMT
The point is Luke, nothingness does not need anything to exist because if something did exist then there would not be nothingness. It's not a difficult concept to understand. If nothing is here nothing is here, that's what it all boils down to. It doesn't need to be conceptualised.
I'm not trying to say it is a phsical (that would be impossible) thing but sadly i'm having to describe it as that for the sake of argument. A concept is a concept, a mere thought or idea. Nothingness is a possibility, in fact a certainty when there is nothing.
|
|