Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The horror! The horror!
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 37 of 84 (177912)
01-17-2005 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by robinrohan
01-17-2005 4:47 PM


Re: Oh, hell...not another "atheism = nihilism" thread.
robinrohan writes:
Does it bother you--anyone--that in a few short years you will cease to exist?
It bothers the hell out of me.
Hi Robin,
Doesn't it - the fact that it bothers you so much - make your existence a whole lot more interesting?
It does for me. If it didn't bother me, I might as well not exist.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by robinrohan, posted 01-17-2005 4:47 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by robinrohan, posted 01-17-2005 6:30 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 40 of 84 (178038)
01-18-2005 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by robinrohan
01-17-2005 6:30 PM


Welcome to Kaufman's Universe
robinrohan writes:
I keep trying to figure it out--keep trying to find some reason I have existed--but of course the answer is, there is no reason.
That's "interesting" all right--if that is the term.
Robin,
It's not so much that we are bothered by the prospect of not existing that's interesting, but that we can be bothered about it in the first place; it's not that there is no point to our existence, but that we can contemplate there being no point to it.
Stars exist, rocks exist, icebergs exist. But they are not flabbergasted that they do. We are, and the paradox of our existence is that our contemplating the total absurdness of our situation is what makes it absurd in the first place. It's a bit like being in a Charlie Kaufman film.
If that isn't interesting, I don't know what is.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by robinrohan, posted 01-17-2005 6:30 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by robinrohan, posted 01-18-2005 9:21 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 51 of 84 (179226)
01-21-2005 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by robinrohan
01-20-2005 12:40 PM


Re: Back to the "the horror"
Robin,
If consciousness is an emergent property of something physical (the brain), then why not entertain the thought that a sense of meaning, or purpose, and of morality, could be emergent as well, and in that sense just as real?
Our subjective experience of existence may not coincide with the absolute truth about the world, but it is our experience, it is our truth. We may be allowed a glimpse of objective truth every now and then, which will then prompt us to reappraise our views, but the fact that we have these views in the first place cannot be denied. So, even if the whole of objective truth is unobtainable, we still have our own truth, and it is, although not absolute, very real.
For that matter, morality even must be subjective, because absolute morality is an impossibility, as a lion and a gazelle would attest: the lion eating the gazelle is bad news, from the gazelle's point of view, but the lion begs to differ. The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for the escaping of the gazelle.
robinrohan writes:
Dennet's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," a book I just started [...]
That's a decision you won't regret. I think it would be very hard to find a better description of (Neo-)Darwinism than that wonderful book.
P.S.: It seems to me that you and Ifen need to agree on some precise definitions first. Because the terms 'consciousness', 'self-consciousness', 'sentience', and 'awareness' are so closely linked and yet all seem to have a slighty different meaning, it makes for a murky discussion if they have not been precisely agreed upon.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by robinrohan, posted 01-20-2005 12:40 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2005 4:52 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 64 of 84 (180733)
01-26-2005 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by robinrohan
01-21-2005 4:52 PM


Re: Back to the "the horror"
robinrohan writes:
I don't how one can have "one's own truth" and still call it truth.
Your experiences are your "own" truths. For example, suppose you are looking at a computerscreen on which a red square is projected. With a click of the mouse the square's colour is changed from red to blue. You are now looking at a blue square.
On the outside, it could be explained that lightwaves of a different frequency are now reaching your retina, or that lightparticles with a different energy are exciting your retinal receptors, or maybe yet another objective physical description could be given. In any case, it is clear that in some absolute way something has happened, even if we can never say in absolute terms what exactly. (Because whatever we say about it is always a model.)
But on the inside, your own experience is that the square you were looking at has changed colour. The changing of the colour is another model - this time an experiential description - of the truth. Whatever happened - and again, we may never know in an absolute sense - you can be certain that something has happened, and your description of it is an aspect of that truth.
For all practical purposes, saying "The square changed colour" is as true as it gets. First, it's a statement that conveys that something has happened at all, which is true, and second, it also states that whatever happened was experienced as a change of colour - which is also true.
robinrohan writes:
In fact, ALL reasons for everything as regards life forms are, at bottom, evolutionary reasons.
It's true that evolutionary reasons have shaped life. But if you look at it at the subatomic level, where you see just energy fields and mostly empty space, you will find no evolutionary reasons. You will have to raise the level of description a few notches to see evolution come into play.
In the same way, you may have to raise the level another few notches to see the emergence of concepts such as beauty, meaning, and morality. No matter what the amoral underpinnings are at lower levels, the fact is that we do appreciate beauty, that we can entertain the idea of meaning, and that we are moral beings.
The fact that certain things - evolutionary reasons for example, or concepts like beauty - are not there at some level, does not necessarily mean they cannot exist at any level.
robinrohan writes:
Such a view {that all reasons for everything as regards life forms are evolutionary reasons, P.} gives rise to the feeling of "the horror" which is felt not just by me but by others as well.
Well, if you want to take the nihilist path, you must be prepared to walk the distance. If a certain line of reasoning leads you to conclude that we are automata and that our experiences are illusions, then you must also draw the ultimate conclusion, which is that the resulting feeling of horror is itself an illusion. In this vein, not only is there nothing to worry about, there isn't even someone to do the actual worrying.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by robinrohan, posted 01-21-2005 4:52 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by robinrohan, posted 01-26-2005 3:02 PM Parasomnium has not replied
 Message 68 by lfen, posted 01-26-2005 10:23 PM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 73 by 1.61803, posted 01-27-2005 4:34 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 69 of 84 (181008)
01-27-2005 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by lfen
01-26-2005 10:23 PM


Re: Back to the "the horror"
Ifen quotes me:
In this vein, not only is there nothing to worry about, there isn't even someone to do the actual worrying.
and then
Ifen writes:
And here you arrive at a Buddhist or Advaitist non dual position. There is worrying but no worrier and then the horror disappears.
First of all, let me state that what I wrote is not my own position. I merely described the conclusion that should be drawn when one takes a nihilist stance - which I don't. So you cannot state that I "arrive at a Buddhist position".
Second, what I said is not quite the same as what you make of it. I said there is "nothing to worry about", which you turn into "there is worrying". I clearly did not say that. So, the nihilist position I described is not the same as the Buddhist position you describe.
Lastly, there is the fact that it is illogical to suppose that there can be worrying but no worrier. That's far too esoteric for my taste and I don't buy it.
I'm sorry, Ifen, but it seems that I am not a Buddhist yet.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by lfen, posted 01-26-2005 10:23 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by lfen, posted 01-27-2005 3:03 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 71 of 84 (181015)
01-27-2005 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by lfen
01-27-2005 3:03 AM


Re: Back to the "the horror"
Don't lose any sleep over it. I wasn't really offended, I just saw some wrinkles that I thought needed ironing out.
We can explore this further if you like, what you said sounds rather interesting.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by lfen, posted 01-27-2005 3:03 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by robinrohan, posted 01-27-2005 10:35 AM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 79 by lfen, posted 01-29-2005 10:55 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 76 of 84 (181464)
01-28-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by robinrohan
01-27-2005 10:35 AM


Interesting stuff
Robin,
You summed up my position quite nicely I think, thank you. In this context I would like to point you to this interview with Daniel Dennett. I thought it might interest you too. It's about his latest book, titled "Freedom Evolves", which I plan on buying soon. He makes some very interesting points about determinism, self, and free will.
Although the link points to Reason.com, I found the article somewhere else, namely here. Check out this guy's web files, they're really amazing. Be warned however: it's probably going to involve some serious sleep deprivation.
Enjoy.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by robinrohan, posted 01-27-2005 10:35 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by robinrohan, posted 01-29-2005 10:18 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 77 of 84 (181466)
01-28-2005 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by 1.61803
01-27-2005 4:34 PM


Re: Back to the "the horror"mumbo jumbo
Hifi, (meaning "Hello 1.61803")
1.61803 writes:
I feel that reality, (whatever that is) largely depends on our perspective.
Do you realise that by using the qualifier 'largely', you in effect allow - at least to some degree - the existence of an objective reality? I don't mind that you do, but I wonder if that is really what you want to say.
1.61803 writes:
The man who says the square on the computer is blue, is the final realization of that instant in time.
I'm not sure I understand this. I don't think it's mumbo jumbo, but I would ask you to elaborate this point a bit further.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by 1.61803, posted 01-27-2005 4:34 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2005 11:56 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 82 of 84 (182214)
02-01-2005 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by 1.61803
01-31-2005 11:56 AM


Re: Back to the "the horror"mumbo jumbo
1.61803 writes:
I do believe in a objective reality. (on a macroscopic scale).
BUT......when you get down to the "nitty gritty" (lol) of what actually makes up reality I am not so sure there is anything except energy. And what exactly IS energy? I dunno.
I get your point. But I think that there can be multiple descriptions of objective reality, all different, but all equally valid.
It's no use talking about the computerscreen in front of me as being just a jumble of energy fields and mostly empty space, unless I'm entertaining the thought of sticking my head inside it, just because that too is mostly empty space and there's an infinitely small chance that it might just work.
A more useful description is that there really is an entity in front of me that has the real properties one might expect a computerscreen to have. I say "more useful" because the energy field description has little or no impact on my perception of the screen, whereas the computerscreen description does.
1.61803 writes:
What I meant by "The man who says the square on the computer is blue, is the final realization of that instant in time."
Is that our observations and perspective make up our reality.
So far so good, as long as the emphasis is on "our" - i.e. subjective - reality ...
1.61803 writes:
Or We realize our own reality by our interactions with the universe and vice versa. IMO.
... but I'm a bit misty about the "vice versa" bit. The word 'interaction' already implies reciprocity, so I wonder if your use of "vice versa" is simply superfluous, or that you meant something else.
Forgive my pedantry with regard to your way of saying things, but I think that it is important to be precise in these matters. It is very easy to fall into the trap of saying things that are devoid of meaning.
1.61803 writes:
If one is a nihlist and believes that there is no 'reason de entre'
that reality and existance is arbitrary and absurd, then that will become a self fulfilling prophesy so to speak.
Yes, but only from a personal point of view. There's no absolute sense in which this follows. If a booming voice from the sky would say: "Your raison d'tre is to worship me", that would surely change things, wouldn't it?
1.61803 writes:
There is alot to be said for the power of positive thinking do you agree?
I agree, but, again, only insofar as it impacts your own inner feelings. Positive thinking can make you happy and negativity can make you sad, but either cannot change reality if you do not act upon it.
I am sorry if I seem to be downplaying each and every brilliant thought of yours.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by 1.61803, posted 01-31-2005 11:56 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 83 of 84 (182234)
02-01-2005 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by lfen
01-29-2005 10:55 AM


Re: Back to the "the horror"
Ifen writes:
The other "prong" is more contemporary western science and such fields as General Semantics.
Back when he was still Major Semantics, you might have got away with calling him a "prong", but I would be careful around grumpy ol' General Semantics nowadays.
Ifen writes:
Much of my posting activity in this forum grows out of this interest of mine so further exploration suits me just fine.
It's that Buckminster quote you used that got my attention: "I seem to be a verb". The first thing that popped up in my mind was a paraphrase of it: "I seem to be an idea". I had been thinking about the nature of consciousness a lot lately and the subject of memes was never far away. Suddenly it clicked: consiousness is a huge complex of memes.
But it's hardly an original thought, because it turns out that just those portions of Dennett that I hadn't read yet, state precisely that.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by lfen, posted 01-29-2005 10:55 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by lfen, posted 02-01-2005 11:12 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024