|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 19:08:27 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. Perceptions don't exist in a physical form so we can't be located in them. We can't percieve things that don't exist, even hallucinations are cause by chemicals, or imbalances of them, that we are percieving. "Perception" it's a word not an actuality. A perception doesn't exist except as a vessel to describe something.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 19:13:11 GMT
You're right - when something exists nothingness does not, so when something does not exist - nothingness does.
However, seeing as something always exists then how do we know that nothingness would be there if something was not. Therefore, it is just an idea or concept.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 19:17:19 GMT
We know because it's simple logic and us being there is irrelevant. If something else was there then it would be a case of something else existing not nothingness. We don't need to say it's a case of uncertainty because it's black and white.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 19:18:44 GMT
Perceptions don't exist in a physical form so we can't be located in them. We can't percieve things that don't exist, even hallucinations are cause by chemicals, or imbalances of them, that we are percieving. "Perception" it's a word not an actuality. A perception doesn't exist except as a vessel to describe something. Correct - they don't exist but they are what our brains and ourselves seeing every little thing as. Every single thing is affected by our interpretation of it. Surely that means we live within our interpretations or perceptions - call it whatever of everything.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 19:23:20 GMT
We know because it's simple logic and us being there is irrelevant. If something else was there then it would be a case of something else existing not nothingness. We don't need to say it's a case of uncertainty because it's black and white. Until it happens it will always be an idea, an assumption - no matter how clear it is, how logical it seems, how obvious it must be - it is still a hypothesis or a concept. IT can be as well reasoned and logical, as inevitable as anything - it is still just an idea.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Feb 20, 2008 19:26:51 GMT
4. Why is there something rather than nothing at all?
Clearly, many conceptual problems are associated with this question. How do we define nothing? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? You could claim that God is the answer....... But, then, why is there God rather than nothing? Assuming we can define nothing, why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something.......? (Brain hurting now)
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 19:29:43 GMT
Me and Ben have been debating all afternoon Bismarck - albeit wandering a little and it doesn't get any easier lol #roflmao# You've summed up a lot of the problems excellently. Basically, it just creates more questions and heated debate - brilliant isn't it!
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Feb 20, 2008 19:35:56 GMT
Correct.....
Question....do you sometimes think that this is all here just for you?Everything is just an illusion?There is no "Africa" until you decide to go there.......but what is "Africa"......just something you created......?In your mind?
Heavy isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 19:40:32 GMT
It is heavy and yes i do Bismarck - is something still there when i'm not looking at it. Is this forum a figment of my imagination and are you just a part of my subconscious Bissy. Is a part my subconscious creating you and what you say?
Awesome stuff isn't it - you could think about it for years and get nowhere!
|
|
|
Post by thefullback on Feb 20, 2008 19:41:56 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. FAILED Having read all the replies so far I'm going to leave it to you guys. = ME LOOKING FOR ANSWERS
|
|
|
Post by likeasharkinafunnyhat on Feb 20, 2008 19:45:09 GMT
The truth is out there.... Need to give this a bit of thought
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Feb 20, 2008 19:50:02 GMT
It is heavy and yes i do Bismarck - is something still there when i'm not looking at it. Is this forum a figment of my imagination and are you just a part of my subconscious Bissy. Is a part my subconscious creating you and what you say? Awesome stuff isn't it - you could think about it for years and get nowhere! Or are you part of my subconscious that I have created......?
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 19:51:26 GMT
Exactly Otto but to me that is impossible, as the only thing i can be certain of is in my own head (or can i be certain of that?!!!)
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 19:52:36 GMT
Perceptions don't exist in a physical form so we can't be located in them. We can't percieve things that don't exist, even hallucinations are cause by chemicals, or imbalances of them, that we are percieving. "Perception" it's a word not an actuality. A perception doesn't exist except as a vessel to describe something. Correct - they don't exist but they are what our brains and ourselves seeing every little thing as. Every single thing is affected by our interpretation of it. Surely that means we live within our interpretations or perceptions - call it whatever of everything. It all depends what you mean by 'live' and when you use the word 'within' after it is fair to assume you mean 'dwell' or 'abide.' Obviously this is impossible as you can't live somewhere that doesn't exist as that would imply it does exist.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 19:54:44 GMT
Yep we can't live, reside, abide within them - i know that, although that is the logical conlusion. That still brings me back to the original question - where are we?
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 19:59:28 GMT
We know because it's simple logic and us being there is irrelevant. If something else was there then it would be a case of something else existing not nothingness. We don't need to say it's a case of uncertainty because it's black and white. Until it happens it will always be an idea, an assumption - no matter how clear it is, how logical it seems, how obvious it must be - it is still a hypothesis or a concept. IT can be as well reasoned and logical, as inevitable as anything - it is still just an idea. Can't agree with that, if there isn't something there has to be nothing.That's not hypothesis. It doesn't really go any further than that for me. Obviously you're never going to get any empirical evidence for this which backs me up, if there was nothing there would be no standard to test against, no anything. Nothing is not dependant on something, it is it's opposite, it's antithesis. It is to something as anti-matter is to matter (it's exactly that in fact).
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 20:02:34 GMT
Yep we can't live, reside, abide within them - i know that, although that is the logical conlusion. That still brings me back to the original question - where are we? Physically we are on a planet, in a galaxy, in a universe and that's the only way we can be somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 20:04:02 GMT
Yep we can't live, reside, abide within them - i know that, although that is the logical conlusion. That still brings me back to the original question - where are we? Physically we are on a planet, in a galaxy, in a universe and that's the only way we can be somewhere. Which is affected and arguably created by our perceptions - so we live within them but we can't etc. I see where this is going.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Feb 20, 2008 20:07:39 GMT
Yep we can't live, reside, abide within them - i know that, although that is the logical conlusion. That still brings me back to the original question - where are we? Physically we are on a planet, in a galaxy, in a universe and that's the only way we can be somewhere. But how do you know that Ben?Did someone tell you?Did you read it in a book?Did you see it on TV......
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 20:09:09 GMT
Until it happens it will always be an idea, an assumption - no matter how clear it is, how logical it seems, how obvious it must be - it is still a hypothesis or a concept. IT can be as well reasoned and logical, as inevitable as anything - it is still just an idea. Can't agree with that, if there isn't something there has to be nothing.That's not hypothesis. It doesn't really go any further than that for me. Obviously you're never going to get any empirical evidence for this which backs me up, if there was nothing there would be no standard to test against, no anything. Nothing is not dependant on something, it is it's opposite, it's antithesis. It is to something as anti-matter is to matter (it's exactly that in fact). That would be logical yes and is probably correct but it's not fact. It can't be proven thus is just an idea - so nothingness only exists in the form of a concept that is impossible to be proven or, to be fair, equally, disproven. Leaving us with no conclusion, surely - that belief is only based on other cases, so could be incorrect. You think it's fact, i think it's only a concept - two contrasting beliefs that at the end of the day cannot satisfactorily proven or disproven. I believe in God, you don't - similar circumstances imo.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 20:11:19 GMT
The laws of the universe affect our perceptions, not the other way round. Our ability to percieve is borne of the universe. A process of Condension, collision, formation, expansion, reformation, abiogenesis, evolution, natural instinct and social conditioning.
The universe was here long before us and will be long after we are extinct. No amount of human thought is going to change that EVER.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Feb 20, 2008 20:13:25 GMT
The laws of the universe affect our perceptions, not the other way round. Our ability to percieve is borne of the universe. A process of Condension, collision, formation, expansion, reformation, abiogenesis, evolution, natural instinct and social conditioning. The universe was here long before us and will be long after we are extinct. No amount of human thought is going to change that EVER. But.....how do you know these things?
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 20:18:29 GMT
Can't agree with that, if there isn't something there has to be nothing.That's not hypothesis. It doesn't really go any further than that for me. Obviously you're never going to get any empirical evidence for this which backs me up, if there was nothing there would be no standard to test against, no anything. Nothing is not dependant on something, it is it's opposite, it's antithesis. It is to something as anti-matter is to matter (it's exactly that in fact). That would be logical yes and is probably correct but it's not fact. It can't be proven thus is just an idea - so nothingness only exists in the form of a concept that is impossible to be proven or, to be fair, equally, disproven. Leaving us with no conclusion, surely - that belief is only based on other cases, so could be incorrect. You think it's fact, i think it's only a concept - two contrasting beliefs that at the end of the day cannot satisfactorily proven or disproven. I believe in God, you don't - similar circumstances imo. If something is completely impossible to prove then it doesn't exist. If it exists then so does the possibility, no matter how remote, that it could conceiveably by proven. If something exists then the circumstances for it to exist also exist. Theoretically (though not always practically) these cirumstances can be recreated and tested. If something doesn't exist then neither do the circumstances that would allow it to exist, we couldn't recreate the circumstances and we couldn't prove it's existence. So as we can't recreate the circumstances of nothingness it must not exist. Which means nothingness is exactly that, nothingness.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 20:20:02 GMT
The laws of the universe affect our perceptions, not the other way round. Our ability to percieve is borne of the universe. A process of Condension, collision, formation, expansion, reformation, abiogenesis, evolution, natural instinct and social conditioning. The universe was here long before us and will be long after we are extinct. No amount of human thought is going to change that EVER. But.....how do you know these things? Because they have been scientifically observed, empirically proven and accepted. Believe me i'm speculating a lot less than anyone else in this debate.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 20:22:07 GMT
Physically we are on a planet, in a galaxy, in a universe and that's the only way we can be somewhere. But how do you know that Ben?Did someone tell you?Did you read it in a book?Did you see it on TV...... Where are you and Luke getting your ideas and theories from? Your own brains which both of you are trying to say are not to be trusted? My ideas are supported by empirical evidence, yours are wild speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Feb 20, 2008 20:24:24 GMT
If the world that we individually perceive is limited to an internal perspective, then there is no way that we could determine whether our own perspective is useful, true, or valuable because......... (a) we know whether our internal perspective is correct only by comparing it with an objective, external perspective. (b) whatever we appeal to in order to prove that our perspective is right itself would be part of the standard we use in evaluating that perspective. (c) scientific research that reveals facts about the world would cause us to challenge our perceptions in a dreamworld of our own making. (d) without limiting our perspective to an internal dreamworld, we cannot achieve any objective, external knowledge of the real world.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 20:31:57 GMT
If the world that we individually perceive is limited to an internal perspective, then there is no way that we could determine whether our own perspective is useful, true, or valuable because......... (a) we know whether our internal perspective is correct only by comparing it with an objective, external perspective. (b) whatever we appeal to in order to prove that our perspective is right itself would be part of the standard we use in evaluating that perspective. (c) scientific research that reveals facts about the world would cause us to challenge our perceptions in a dreamworld of our own making. (d) without limiting our perspective to an internal dreamworld, we cannot achieve any objective, external knowledge of the real world. Exactly Bissy, surely everything we look at, do, know etc is affected by our perceptions, whether we know it or not. Even if we weren't, how would we know - it could be affected by our perspectives, we don't know. Yes we are speculating and being pinickity but that's the fun of it, challenging every little thing, every assumption, every assumed fact, everything we take for granted. We could be woefully wrong, looking into things too deeply, whatever but it doesn't matter. There's a high probability that your right but the fun is considering that miniscule, almost non-existent chance that everything is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Feb 20, 2008 20:35:39 GMT
But how do you know that Ben?Did someone tell you?Did you read it in a book?Did you see it on TV...... Where are you and Luke getting your ideas and theories from? Your own brains which both of you are trying to say are not to be trusted? My ideas are supported by empirical evidence, yours are wild speculation. Evidence that could easily be altered by your perceptions or seeing what you want to see. Does it matter if we're wrong - wild specualtion is great, considering the possibility that not everything is as it seems. Of course it could be but the fun, is the possibility and it is a possibility that it's not. Everything could be affected by the way we perceive it, nothingness may be a concept, it may be an actuality but does it matter - the fun is in the theories!!
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 20:40:08 GMT
Why does everyone on the face of this Earth, chemical imbalance permitting, percieve the world in the same way then? And before you say 'how do you know?' i'm sure if anyone had a remotely valid different interpretation we would all know about it. I know it's fun to debate the point but the point is to debate. That's all i'm doing.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Feb 20, 2008 20:45:11 GMT
I wish someone other than us three would get involved as well. We need some other points of view in here.
|
|