|
Post by JoeLatics on Mar 4, 2008 18:51:21 GMT
The theory of nothing Once upon a time there was nothing. Zip. No Joe ( ) no RHF, nothing. One day, nothing by chance became bored, so it became something. Something like its dad nothing became bored, and became lots of little somethings (just by chance it knew it could do this) Lots of these little somethings happened to join together to make Earth, which just happened to have the perfect conditions so that when one day a lightening bolt just happened to hit the water, a little life form was born, which used asexual reproduction to make lots of other little life forms. One day, a little life form got bored, so climbed onto land, and became the first human, just by chance.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Mar 5, 2008 0:26:52 GMT
The theory of nothing Once upon a time there was nothing. Zip. No Joe ( ) no RHF, nothing. One day, nothing by chance became bored, so it became something. Something like its dad nothing became bored, and became lots of little somethings (just by chance it knew it could do this) Lots of these little somethings happened to join together to make Earth, which just happened to have the perfect conditions so that when one day a lightening bolt just happened to hit the water, a little life form was born, which used asexual reproduction to make lots of other little life forms. One day, a little life form got bored, so climbed onto land, and became the first human, just by chance. Basically it, but to get it right you have to use reverse logic. Don't assume something as planned or decided (eg, got bored) or the theory wouldn't hold water.
|
|
|
Post by arover on Mar 5, 2008 13:37:53 GMT
The theory of nothing Once upon a time there was nothing. Zip. No Joe ( ) no RHF, nothing. One day, nothing by chance became bored, so it became something. Something like its dad nothing became bored, and became lots of little somethings (just by chance it knew it could do this) Lots of these little somethings happened to join together to make Earth, which just happened to have the perfect conditions so that when one day a lightening bolt just happened to hit the water, a little life form was born, which used asexual reproduction to make lots of other little life forms. One day, a little life form got bored, so climbed onto land, and became the first human, just by chance. Homespun stuff here.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Mar 5, 2008 20:13:49 GMT
The theory of nothing Once upon a time there was nothing. Zip. No Joe ( ) no RHF, nothing. One day, nothing by chance became bored, so it became something. Something like its dad nothing became bored, and became lots of little somethings (just by chance it knew it could do this) Lots of these little somethings happened to join together to make Earth, which just happened to have the perfect conditions so that when one day a lightening bolt just happened to hit the water, a little life form was born, which used asexual reproduction to make lots of other little life forms. One day, a little life form got bored, so climbed onto land, and became the first human, just by chance. Check out the rest of the thread Joe - we've discussed this plenty if you wanna get involved. Ben subscribes to the theory that something is here by pure chance whereas i think that for the concept of nothing to exist there has to be something, so this isn't chance.
|
|
|
Post by JoeLatics on Mar 8, 2008 17:11:56 GMT
Thats my point, I tried to post 'Sounds likely to you?' but my network died halfway through typing
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Apr 2, 2008 20:59:25 GMT
Regarding the question about how we percieve our existence, Rene Descartes just about summed it up i feel; "Cogito ergo sum." (I Think, Therefore I Am). Now of course, in most other subjects i would rubbish this quote. Just because you think something doesn't make it true. However, when it comes to Ontology (the study of what exists) at a philosophical level, this is absolutely fine by me. We can only percieve what we percieve, i think therefore i am. I'd like to point out that most Ontologists don't accept the Descartesian viewpoint today, it is not a popular theory but the one that i prefer. It may not be strictly factual but there is little point going above and beyond what is possible. That is why i accept it.
|
|
normanbitesyerlegs
Reserves Player
[M:0]
We're the best behaved supporters in the land (when we win)
Posts: 213
|
Post by normanbitesyerlegs on Apr 3, 2008 16:38:30 GMT
Funny Philosophical Question #457 Can you choose to believe that you don't have free will?
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 3, 2008 17:41:06 GMT
Mmmmm a classic...over to you Ben....
|
|
|
Post by thefullback on Apr 3, 2008 17:59:14 GMT
Here is the answer ... should have remembered .. it's a classic ..
... and listen for those immortal words approx 1min 21 secs in
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Apr 3, 2008 21:30:27 GMT
I may detect a hint of religious rhetoric here but i will ignore that.
Of course you can choose to believe you don't have free will. If you make that decision you've made that decision. It may not be true in any way as by choosing to do so you've exercised your free will, however that doesn't affect your belief.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Cunningham on Apr 27, 2008 20:37:16 GMT
Not sure if this one has already been done but:
What is good and what is evil?
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 27, 2008 22:31:45 GMT
Good one for a Sunday night Olly......
The ability to decide what is good and what is evil, is the function of an understanding. The better the understanding, the greater its ability to recognise right from wrong, and the more wise it is. So wisdom can be defined as the ability to distinguish good from evil....but if you bring religion into it....To some Hindus it is right to burn the still living widow upon the funeral pyre of her dead husband, but to many other cultures this would be an abominable crime.....and off we go....
|
|
|
Post by arover on Apr 28, 2008 13:32:33 GMT
They throw live people on funeral pyres?
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 28, 2008 14:54:06 GMT
Yes,sounds incredible to us but it is a fact....
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Apr 28, 2008 17:31:17 GMT
Not sure if this one has already been done but: What is good and what is evil?The only viable answer in my books is from a nihilistic viewpoint. Since there is no such thing as objective morality there is no such thing as good or evil. They are too subjective to be clearly defined.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Apr 28, 2008 17:39:38 GMT
Right, i don't think i've put a question forward on here. I'll go with my musical affections and use some lyrics from a Smiths song (Still Ill) that got me thinking earlier.
"Does the mind rule the body? Or does the body rule the mind?"
Obviously there is a clear biological answer to this (it's neither the mind nor the body) but i just wondered what people thought philosphically.
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 28, 2008 20:02:14 GMT
Not sure if this one has already been done but: What is good and what is evil?The only viable answer in my books is from a nihilistic viewpoint. Since there is no such thing as objective morality there is no such thing as good or evil. They are too subjective to be clearly defined. Defining Good and Evil is not a simple task, and getting it wrong means either punishing the good or rewarding the evil, both furthering evil. As humanity is only effective as a group, the judgement of good or evil must be the recognition of what is good and what is bad for the group. Hence: Good is that which improves the community....... Evil is that which weakens the community....... But knowing which is which is a difficult task and can only be resolved by wisdom.......
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Apr 28, 2008 20:04:29 GMT
The only viable answer in my books is from a nihilistic viewpoint. Since there is no such thing as objective morality there is no such thing as good or evil. They are too subjective to be clearly defined. Defining Good and Evil is not a simple task, and getting it wrong means either punishing the good or rewarding the evil, both furthering evil. As humanity is only effective as a group, the judgement of good or evil must be the recognition of what is good and what is bad for the group. Hence: Good is that which improves the community....... Evil is that which weakens the community....... But knowing which is which is a difficult task and can only be resolved by wisdom....... Are there not situations where good could weaken the community and evil could strengthen it? Necessary evils if you will?
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 28, 2008 20:07:29 GMT
Right, i don't think i've put a question forward on here. I'll go with my musical affections and use some lyrics from a Smiths song (Still Ill) that got me thinking earlier. "Does the mind rule the body? Or does the body rule the mind?" Obviously there is a clear biological answer to this (it's neither the mind nor the body) but i just wondered what people thought philosphically. Mmmmm,difficult one...Mind over body, the body reacts towards electric shocks from the brain. This leans towards anatomical science, not philosophy..... The universe is single and whole. You form the boundaries between yourself and the rest of the universe. You make the the rest of the universe into parts. You slice yourself into smaller pieces so you might understand........ There is no mind, there is no body other than as you define it. There is no rule, there is no control, other than that you believe. You are a point of view.......best I can do......
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Apr 28, 2008 20:11:22 GMT
Well anatomically speaking Deoxyribonucleic Acid rules everything you do.
But anyway, even if that weren't so and we were dealing with a chicken and egg question, you have to take into account that the brain needs information in order to send these electrical impulses. A cursory glance at the nervous system tells us that this info comes from our senses eg' the eyes, the skin, the ears, the nose etc'
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 28, 2008 20:13:07 GMT
I know where the brain is, and I know where the body is, but where is the mind? Can you show me your mind?
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Apr 28, 2008 20:21:05 GMT
I know where the brain is, and I know where the body is, but where is the mind? Can you show me your mind? In this context it's used to conceptualise the brain. If you remember i used song lyrics for the question, Morrissey didn't write "Does the brain rule the body..."
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck on Apr 28, 2008 20:34:11 GMT
Therefore I would refer you to Cartesian dualism....
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Apr 28, 2008 20:35:53 GMT
Perhaps the mind and the body work in complete harmony, a symbiotic relationship. Sometimes the mind controls the body, sometimes vice versa.
An involuntary action (withdrawing from something hot), for example is our senses, our body controlling what we do, a survival instinct. However, conscious actions are determined by a thought process which controls our body and senses. For me, it's circumstantial which controls which.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Apr 28, 2008 20:56:53 GMT
Therefore I would refer you to Cartesian dualism.... A philosophy from the seventeenth century that is now defunct? Neurologists know that thoughts arise from our brain. We no longer need the concept of a non-material 'mind' to understand our thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Apr 28, 2008 21:11:23 GMT
Might not need, no. But it doesn't half help conceptualise the whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Apr 28, 2008 21:23:23 GMT
Not from a nihilists viewpoint. Non-material aspects of humanity aren't needed in my books.
|
|
|
Post by hallmackem on Apr 28, 2008 21:24:30 GMT
By jove i've missed this thread.
I can use big words without feeling pretentious.
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Apr 29, 2008 19:32:54 GMT
I know it's great isn't it, i can talk about the concept of nothingness seriously for Christ's sake - any thread that allows me to do that is excellent in my book!
|
|
|
Post by Lukiebakercafc on Apr 29, 2008 19:39:34 GMT
Not from a nihilists viewpoint. Non-material aspects of humanity aren't needed in my books. They help in mine but hey, everyone's different life would be boring if we were all the same.
|
|