8 Great Philosophical Questions

[Leonardo]

Wait so we have to have a subjective experience to experience an objective reality? That proves the point. The question was if there are any objective experiences..... There are not. It's completely impossible. The word "experience" implies subjectivity in of itself

I am not a subject of myself. I experience myself objectively.

All I experience that is not self may be subjective, but the experience of self is an objective experience.

[Frank Merton]

I am not a subject of myself. I experience myself objectively.

All I experience that is not self may be subjective, but the experience of self is an objective experience.

Now to me I would say that all my experience that is not self is illusion but stems from real objective causes, while the experience of self is entirely an illusion with nothing objective there.

[Leonardo]

Now to me I would say that all my experience that is not self is illusion but stems from real objective causes, while the experience of self is entirely an illusion with nothing objective there.

Even if "I" am illusion, or a deception, it is still "me". "I" exist, that is self-evident.

Self is the recognition of the thinking Mind. One cannot be separate from self to recognise self; therefore it is an objective experience.

[Frank Merton]

Well I dunno. It depends on what you may mean by "exist." How to you conceive this "me?" Like a little homunculus (a little "me" inside you with its own smaller little "me" inside it etc.) or as a mystical thing akin to a soul?

All I can testify to being sure is there is not something at all but just a chain of thoughts and sensations and recollections and so on all kinda random and kinda loosely connected.

[Leonardo]

Well I dunno. It depends on what you may mean by "exist." How to you conceive this "me?" Like a little homunculus (a little "me" inside you with its own smaller little "me" inside it etc.) or as a mystical thing akin to a soul?

All I can testify to being sure is there is not something at all but just a chain of thoughts and sensations and recollections and so on all kinda random and kinda loosely connected.

I am not considering anything physical, just the identity "I" that exists as Mind. That is the self. It is not separate from Mind, as a homunculus would be, but is recognition of Mind as self.

That exists, whether illusion, deception, or not. The existence of self is self-evident and irrefutable. The experience of self is necessarily objective.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Leonardo

[Lilly]

" I think, therefore I am." (cogito ergo sum) ~Descartes~

[Frank Merton]

" I think, therefore I am." (cogito ergo sum) ~Descartes~

Yea I know, and as someone once quipped, what does Descartes think he is doing when he "thinks?"

[spacecowboy342]

" I think, therefore I am." (cogito ergo sum) ~Descartes~

"Cogito presupposes the existence of 'I'.

x thinks

I think I am x

Therefore I think I am" - Soren Kierkegaard

[Nighthawk9653]

These are things I think about a lot.. And never seem to come up with a good answer.

[Leonardo]

"Cogito presupposes the existence of 'I'.

x thinks

I think I am x

Therefore I think I am" - Soren Kierkegaard

I don't agree with Kirkegaard.

I think,

"I" am.

It is not more complicated that that. It is not a matter of 'observing' that I think - that would be the "thinking homunculus" that Frank referred to, and is Kirkegaard's first premise "x thinks". It is a matter of acknowledging that I think, therefore "I" (the self which this thinking defines) exist.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Leonardo

[Frank Merton]

We tend to avoid thinking about the real mysteries; they are disturbing. This fools us into thinking we really know something.

[spacecowboy342]

I don't agree with Kirkegaard.

I think,

"I" am.

It is not more complicated that that. It is not a matter of 'observing' that I think - that would be the "thinking homunculus" that Frank referred to, and is Kirkegaard's first premise "x thinks". It is a matter of acknowledging that I think, therefore "I" (the self which this thinking defines) exist.

Yeah, I kind of see it as being tied to the notion of self and free will. Is there an I, independent of the neural net or do the processes of the neural net merely give that illusion?

[SpiritWriter]

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

2. Is our universe real?

3. Do we have free will?

4. Does God exist?

5. Is there life after death?

6. Can you really experience anything objectively?

7. What is the best moral system?

8. What are numbers?

So dont try to solve these

http://altering-pers...tions-that.html

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

because there is

2. Is our universe real?

yes

3. Do we have free will?

Our free will extends out of ourselves far enough to allow us to practice our demeanor.

4. Does God exist?

yes

5. Is there life after death?

yes

6. Can you really experience anything objectively?

both yes and no could be correct, but because yes is correct we must press yes for this selection which makes it doubly so and outweighs the false bearing

7. What is the best moral system?

The ten commandendments would do if seen appropriately and within the same light for all viewers. Apply also the greatest commandment which is to: Love God with all your heart and strength and your neighbor as yourself. This would have to be a work in progress and would need to exist in an environment with the best communication skills possible. The exercise of discipline and consequences would also need to be used, unless the members are very self sufficient at applying morality within their systems.

8. What are numbers?

symbols that express the concept of counting and used for labeling and the function of certain types of math

Edited January 8, 2014 by SpiritWriter

[SpiritWriter]

We tend to avoid thinking about the real mysteries; they are disturbing. This fools us into thinking we really know something.

Oh frank you know something now don't you, you just don't want to admit it.

[Drayno]

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

At least to me, that's a chicken-before-egg question. You cannot really know why there is something as opposed to nothing; all you can know is that you are apart of that something, even in a limited, organic vessel, and that because you have basic interpretive skills, you are able to deduce that nothing is the absence of something - but nothing is the contrary to what you are.

2. Is our universe real?

I always think about the Allegory of the Cave. Are we all shadows on the wall, unable to fully realize our purpose in 'reality' because we are only familiar with only one aspect of it? It seems because that one aspect is all we know, it governs the definition of what our 'reality' is. 'Real' is subjective, but it's also agreed upon in a consensus by a group of other organisms capable of sentience, and thus 'individuality', whom are able to transfer the wealth of knowledge, and toss concepts and thoughts, such as I am communicating this passage to you. The universe is a very, very, very complex system. A fragile, chaotic affair that's never static. A true theater of the Absurd.

3. Do we have free will?

Free-will versus Determinism. Is life pre-determined or am I actually making choices for myself, which are conceived by my thoughts, and thus my ego - thus my sense of self - thus my sense of individualism? To me, free-will goes hand in hand with sentience. If you have sentience, you are able to interact with your environment on a cognitive level and store information you've processed; memory, for later pondering. Because you have a degree of cognitive thought, you are able to experience the human condition, and thus have thoughts pertaining to your ego. Although you still retain basic primal urges and behavior which may or may not be genetically linked, you also are capable of critical thought. And thought always comes before choice.

If you can think, you are aware of the possibility. If you do or do not, you are choosing to act on what you believe could happen: "If I pick this penny up off the ground what will be the consequences? If I choose not to pick it up, will I die in some snowballed sequence of events?" With cognitive thought you will process information and weigh the pros and cons. What it comes down to is whether or not you are caught in a rigged system: "Is free-will an illusion? Is everything programmed to happen in a seemingly 'pattern', so that it comes across as natural? Is my sentience the vehicle to induce this illusion?"

4. Does God exist?

No one can know for sure.

5. Is there life after death?

I don't know. Humans cling to any comfortable idea. Life after death is one of them.

Psychologically, we want reassurance...

6. Can you really experience anything objectively?

Probably not! Human's are dull, subjective creatures lacking any oversight.

7. What is the best moral system?

One of peace. One of love. One of patience and education.

8. What are numbers?

Beats me, dude. The language of the universe.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Oran

[behavioralist]

There is not nothing because there never was.

The universe is far more real than real; it's just that we are not evolved enough to survive the shock of how real it is.

Any diabolical mind owns any less diabolical mind, so free will is the flattery diabolical minds have contrived.

There is no Life in the capacity to question the existence of the most obvious entity: God, so it is a question generated from data pretending to be alive, a pretense directly reflecting (mirroring) a preference for people's pretenses over who (socially) they are hiding behind these pretentions, a conditioned preference for being deceived.

Death flushes out all but evolution, and parents imprint the latest stuff on us when we returrn so that at first only evolution rules us, but eventually we encounter those new things only the imprinting is telling us how to deal with. All imprinting in man so far has deposed evolution, making it subconscious, as we presume to seek favor with diabolical authority.

Emotion is the objective exprerience, refelcting how evolved we and others are being. Emotion as arrogated by the conscious, which is by the preference for being deceived, is dead because it has to be part of privacy, the private self being aware of it. If I am deceiving you and you are deceived emotion is telling you the truth, unless you adopt the deception, which makes the emotion yours, private. Clearly this also makes it private as me, since if it is you it is not helping you find me. Only without the conscious does Life get back to living and emotion get back to being understanding.

Evolution is the only moral system. Evolution expands the social grasp by producing more diversity and more profound differences in species. There is nothing for the Cosmos to reflect but pedantry (Spock, Yoda) when it is not more evolution waiting in the wings.

Numbers are a system of slowing down the counting process from perception's superluminal velocity.

Edited January 9, 2014 by behavioralist

[kreleroll129]

1st, few of those questions are related for example, 1st and 4th question. Then 4th and 3rd. And so on.

So if I answer that something existed from the beggining of time, for example, atom I instantly said that God exists because someone or something must've created that. If I say nothing existed, than there is no God.

Then, If I say God exists than we don't have free will. Everything is written, what will we do, what will we eat, play etc. But if I say that God doesn't exist, than we instantly have free will. We can do what we want, what our minds want.

Then, If I say God exists that instantly, Life after death exists. Imagine if we all die and there isn't life after death. Realisticaly said, it would be boring. Everything would end really soon, because in my opinion, world is currently degrading. In a few hundred years, we would all die or live forever. Then what? If we all die and there isn't life after death, what will happen? But, if life after death exists and when we all die, than that is a topic worth discussing.

SO, overall. All of these questions are related and if you answer one, you can kill an argument in the other. So, that's why those questions can't be answered.

[thyra]

1st, few of those questions are related for example, 1st and 4th question. Then 4th and 3rd. And so on.

So if I answer that something existed from the beggining of time, for example, atom I instantly said that God exists because someone or something must've created that. If I say nothing existed, than there is no God.

Then, If I say God exists than we don't have free will. Everything is written, what will we do, what will we eat, play etc. But if I say that God doesn't exist, than we instantly have free will. We can do what we want, what our minds want.

Then, If I say God exists that instantly, Life after death exists. Imagine if we all die and there isn't life after death. Realisticaly said, it would be boring. Everything would end really soon, because in my opinion, world is currently degrading. In a few hundred years, we would all die or live forever. Then what? If we all die and there isn't life after death, what will happen? But, if life after death exists and when we all die, than that is a topic worth discussing.

SO, overall. All of these questions are related and if you answer one, you can kill an argument in the other. So, that's why those questions can't be answered.

Nice practice of thought. it caught my attention that it involves a lot of thinking on god. yet there are couple of things tough. God can perhaps create free will. God can perhaps create a reality without afterlife too. Yes, people's mind tend to solve all things through a single "explain it all theory". This is also one of the biggest goals in science. To find a single theory that can be applied to all areas of physics. to my opinion this kinda brings the issue to the understanding of god in the end again.

[behavioralist]

1st, few of those questions are related for example, 1st and 4th question. Then 4th and 3rd. And so on.

So if I answer that something existed from the beggining of time, for example, atom I instantly said that God exists because someone or something must've created that. If I say nothing existed, than there is no God.

Then, If I say God exists than we don't have free will. Everything is written, what will we do, what will we eat, play etc. But if I say that God doesn't exist, than we instantly have free will. We can do what we want, what our minds want.

Then, If I say God exists that instantly, Life after death exists. Imagine if we all die and there isn't life after death. Realisticaly said, it would be boring. Everything would end really soon, because in my opinion, world is currently degrading. In a few hundred years, we would all die or live forever. Then what? If we all die and there isn't life after death, what will happen? But, if life after death exists and when we all die, than that is a topic worth discussing.

SO, overall. All of these questions are related and if you answer one, you can kill an argument in the other. So, that's why those questions can't be answered.

Ego is to be amused by having been abused into disorientation.

It means disorientation is real; every living thing is disoriented, or too stupid to be.

Only programmers intend for us to be disoriented. Life is a quality that can't become disoriented, can't be confused, can't have questions that can be asked that are not already answered, because we're born alive, not programmed. We had the answers.

Edited January 11, 2014 by behavioralist