The Existential Crisis

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are various meanings of what is an existential crisis.
Here is an argument to justify the substance of the existential crisis pulsating from an algorithm with the brain/mind of a person;

• 1. All humans are "programmed" [no God involved] to survive at all costs.
  
  2. To ensure survival, any awareness of a threat of death is triggered with terrible fears to ensure the individual find solutions to avoid premature death.
  
  3. All humans are "programmed" with self-awareness.
  
  4. Mortality [death] is a "certainty" [99.999999..999%].
  
  5. Self-awareness [3] make one aware of mortality [death] [4].
  
  6. Premise 5 triggers 2 but there is no possibility of solutions [2].
  
  7. No possibility of a direct solution [6] pose a dilemma - a cognitive dissonance - which cannot be resolved, thus the existential crisis exuding subliminally.

The above cognitive dissonance from the inherent existential crisis drives the majority into the theism and religions which provide instant relief to numb the terrible existential pains [Angst, anxieties, despair, hopelessness, etc.] of the sufferer.

The above existential crisis also drives many other psychological problems for humans, but that is another topic.

Views?

yep. what you say is true. fear of death is why we have relgions.

i fear death, but am an Atheist.

I only speak for myself, what i beleive or not beleive (god- no god) - I will die either way.

and afterward? no clue, outside of me.

i leave it up to the Gods/God/ your God.................not my concern.
...

DNA/RNA wise, ALL normal humans are "programmed" with fear of death, but not fear death consciously at ALL times.
If you ever fear death consciously upon some triggers it is always temporarily, so just let it pass.

The problem is the very necessary fear of death is suppressed and is active unconsciously. But this suppression is not strong in the majority, thus it leaks as an subliminal existential crisis which drives theists to seek God to relieve the subliminal existential pains.

Those who have persistent and strong fear of death consciously [presumably you are not] are mentally ill [i.e. thanatophobia], thus should consult a psychiatrist to be cured.

[uwot]

Skepdick me old china, I understand that you have given yourself license to cobble together any old string of words and insist that it means whatever you happen to be thinking at that moment, and that could be abso-fucking-lutely any shade of shit. Do yourself a favour and take at least one step up from your mum's basement and drop this silly nonsense about red being an hypothesis.

OK! Let it not be a hypothesis. Let it be a theory - supported by evidence and everything (or so you claim).

No I don't. The absurdity of arguing with someone whose expressed point is:

Philosophers are idiots.

and who will say absolutely anything to try to demonstrate that, is that sometimes, as here, I have to waste time pointing out that I have never made any such claim.

According to your evidence-based theory the English word "red" means THIS COLOR.

One of the standard philosophical games that philosophy undergraduates are sometimes given to play is the question 'How do you know that what you perceive as red is what anyone else perceives as red?' The answer is you don't.

So show me the fucking evidence already!

What you do know is that whoever you ask what colour a fire engine is, regardless of what colour they actually perceive, they will say red. There is no hypothesis, no theory and crucially, as Descartes pointed out, no doubt that there is a perception, be it drug or dæmon induced, and that perception, however it varies across individuals is routinely called red.

[Skepdick]

No I don't. The absurdity of arguing with someone whose expressed point is:

Philosophers are idiots.

and who will say absolutely anything to try to demonstrate that, is that sometimes, as here, I have to waste time pointing out that I have never made any such claim.

You really need to divorce yourself from your feelings and simply observe them. I am using "idiot" as a factual inference, not an insult.

I am holding you up to a standard of non-idiocy which I am busy demonstrating

One of the standard philosophical games that philosophy undergraduates are sometimes given to play is the question 'How do you know that what you perceive as red is what anyone else perceives as red?' The answer is you don't.

Yeah. But that is NOT the game we are playing. I am not sure why you are bringing this into the discussion?

I am NOT asking you whether your "perception of red" is the same as my "perception of red".
What I am asking you is whether you perceive THIS COLOR as "red"; or whether you perceive THIS COLOR as "red".

Q.E.D Philosophers are idiots in claiming that I can't know. I can know and I will know if you answer my damn question.

Is THIS RED; or is THIS RED?

What you do know is that whoever you ask what colour a fire engine is, regardless of what colour they actually perceive, they will say red.

So are you saying that THIS COLOR is "red"?

5785714431_5b77b21783_b.jpg

There is no hypothesis, no theory and crucially, as Descartes pointed out, no doubt that there is a perception, be it drug or dæmon induced, and that perception, however it varies across individuals is routinely called red.

But of course there is a theory!

You are claiming that THIS COLOR is "red".

If that's not a theory, what sort of claim is it?

[Belinda]

The sad face is because I'd like there to be something that is the thing in itself (wouldn't we all?) instead of a social consensus the thing for us.

There is! Experience is it - you are it. The thing in itself.

We are all in this cosmic mess together... Science/scientists are just our "role models" (or so it's being sold anyway) as the "ideal society".

Where logic, reason, camaraderie, solidarity and cooperation towards social consensus rules the roost. And it is, in a way - all the drama is just egos clashing.

I AGREE.

For the sake of honesty I have to test that theory though I'd like to accept it.
A mug of coffee doesn't experience anything. The planet Mars doesn't experience anything. True, Wordsworth thought every flower enjoys the air it breathes but this might be taken to be pathetic fallacy.

the use by a writer or poet of words that give human feelings or qualities to objects, nature, or animals, for example by referring to the "cruel sea".

Quoted.

Does the experience of a sewer rat validate extramental being?

[Age]

There is! Experience is it - you are it. The thing in itself.

We are all in this cosmic mess together... Science/scientists are just our "role models" (or so it's being sold anyway) as the "ideal society".

Where logic, reason, camaraderie, solidarity and cooperation towards social consensus rules the roost. And it is, in a way - all the drama is just egos clashing.

I AGREE.

For the sake of honesty I have to test that theory though I'd like to accept it.
A mug of coffee doesn't experience anything. The planet Mars doesn't experience anything. True, Wordsworth thought every flower enjoys the air it breathes but this might be taken to be pathetic fallacy.

the use by a writer or poet of words that give human feelings or qualities to objects, nature, or animals, for example by referring to the "cruel sea".

Quoted.

Does the experience of a sewer rat validate extramental being?

If you are asking me this, then what does 'extramental being' mean to you?

If we are to say, for example, that 'extra-mental' means something like the 'world' outside of the Mind or thought. Then, to me, absolutely ANY and EVERY thing outside of the mental 'thinking/knowing world' validates its being. That is; ANY and EVERY thing that is sensed, from the human body, through the five senses, BEFORE all that transferred information turns into the mental thinking/knowing, self-validates that it is an 'extra-mental' 'being'.

But, you might have a completely different meaning of 'extramental being' than this one?

Also, I find your question somewhat ambiguous. Are you asking,
'Does the experience of a sewer rat, in what the sewer rat itself experiences, validate extramental being?
Or,
Does the experience, from the human being, of a sewer rat, itself, validate etramental being?

Or, in other words, are you asking;
If the experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, et cetera of another living being, like a sewer rat, other than the human animal being, validate beings beyond/outside of the mental/thinking human being.
Or,
If the experiences that another animal being has, like a sewer rat, validate that there are beings beyond/outside of the mental/thinking human being?

This, however, sadly, and unfortunately may just be confusing things more?

[Age]

There are various meanings of what is an existential crisis.
Here is an argument to justify the substance of the existential crisis pulsating from an algorithm with the brain/mind of a person;

• 1. All humans are "programmed" [no God involved] to survive at all costs.
  
  2. To ensure survival, any awareness of a threat of death is triggered with terrible fears to ensure the individual find solutions to avoid premature death.
  
  3. All humans are "programmed" with self-awareness.
  
  4. Mortality [death] is a "certainty" [99.999999..999%].
  
  5. Self-awareness [3] make one aware of mortality [death] [4].
  
  6. Premise 5 triggers 2 but there is no possibility of solutions [2].
  
  7. No possibility of a direct solution [6] pose a dilemma - a cognitive dissonance - which cannot be resolved, thus the existential crisis exuding subliminally.

The above cognitive dissonance from the inherent existential crisis drives the majority into the theism and religions which provide instant relief to numb the terrible existential pains [Angst, anxieties, despair, hopelessness, etc.] of the sufferer.

The above existential crisis also drives many other psychological problems for humans, but that is another topic.

Views?

yep. what you say is true. fear of death is why we have relgions.

i fear death, but am an Atheist.

I only speak for myself, what i beleive or not beleive (god- no god) - I will die either way.

and afterward? no clue, outside of me.

i leave it up to the Gods/God/ your God.................not my concern.
...

DNA/RNA wise, ALL normal humans are "programmed" with fear of death, but not fear death consciously at ALL times.

LOL "ALL " normal" humans are ..."

Well, saying ONLY the so called "normal" human beings do whatever is being proposed, is one way to 'try to' "justify" what is being proposed as being true and right.

Saying, " "normal" human beings " also influences "others" to come over to their side, or their way, of thinking and seeing things.

If you ever fear death consciously upon some triggers it is always temporarily, so just let it pass.

LOL This 'passing' happens naturally anyway, whether you tell "others" to; "just let it pass", or not. One can not just consciously think of one thing only, for the rest of their lives, anyway and obviously. So, ANY and EVERY thought will just pass anyway. Obviously, ALL thoughts are always temporarily, NATURALLY.

The problem is the very necessary fear of death is suppressed and is active unconsciously. But this suppression is not strong in the majority, thus it leaks as an subliminal existential crisis which drives theists to seek God to relieve the subliminal existential pains.

LOL

Those who have persistent and strong fear of death consciously [presumably you are not] are mentally ill [i.e. thanatophobia], thus should consult a psychiatrist to be cured.

How long and how often is a "persistent", and what exactly is a "strong", 'fear of death' "Doctor veritas aequitas"?

[uwot]

What I am asking you is whether you perceive THIS COLOR as "red"; or whether you perceive THIS COLOR as "red".

Quite why you need me to say it again is a mystery. Still, I'll humour you. I perceive the red red as red.

There is no hypothesis, no theory and crucially, as Descartes pointed out, no doubt that there is a perception, be it drug or dæmon induced, and that perception, however it varies across individuals is routinely called red.

But of course there is a theory!

You are claiming that THIS COLOR is "red".

If that's not a theory, what sort of claim is it?

Well if you take Cartesian scepticism seriously, which you have to for about two weeks as a philosophy undergraduate, the theory part is that there is a computer in front of me, on the screen of which is a series of red letters. There are alternatives to this theory, for example:

I am a brain in a vat.
We are all living in the Matrix.
The universe is a projection from the event horizon of a black hole.

What is not theoretical is the perception of those letters, nor that the perception corresponds to what in English is red. So Skepdick, I am not making any claim about what I perceive, I am telling you a fact.

[Belinda]

I AGREE.

For the sake of honesty I have to test that theory though I'd like to accept it.
A mug of coffee doesn't experience anything. The planet Mars doesn't experience anything. True, Wordsworth thought every flower enjoys the air it breathes but this might be taken to be pathetic fallacy.

the use by a writer or poet of words that give human feelings or qualities to objects, nature, or animals, for example by referring to the "cruel sea".

Quoted.

Does the experience of a sewer rat validate extramental being?

If you are asking me this, then what does 'extramental being' mean to you?

If we are to say, for example, that 'extra-mental' means something like the 'world' outside of the Mind or thought. Then, to me, absolutely ANY and EVERY thing outside of the mental 'thinking/knowing world' validates its being. That is; ANY and EVERY thing that is sensed, from the human body, through the five senses, BEFORE all that transferred information turns into the mental thinking/knowing, self-validates that it is an 'extra-mental' 'being'.

But, you might have a completely different meaning of 'extramental being' than this one?

Also, I find your question somewhat ambiguous. Are you asking,
'Does the experience of a sewer rat, in what the sewer rat itself experiences, validate extramental being?
Or,
Does the experience, from the human being, of a sewer rat, itself, validate etramental being?

Or, in other words, are you asking;
If the experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, et cetera of another living being, like a sewer rat, other than the human animal being, validate beings beyond/outside of the mental/thinking human being.
Or,
If the experiences that another animal being has, like a sewer rat, validate that there are beings beyond/outside of the mental/thinking human being?

This, however, sadly, and unfortunately may just be confusing things more?

Do things (stones, rats, mugs of coffee and so forth) exist as objects of space and time or is their existence dependent on mind/thought/ideas?

If they exist as objects in space and time we can measure them. Measuring them is predicating ideas about them.Schrodinger's cat is either exclusively alive or exclusively dead and we don't know which state the cat is in until we open the box. Schrodinger's cat shows minds/ideas/thoughts don't make something to be the case but reveal something to be the case. Ontologically both possibility and probability exist however we cannot know any probability until we have "opened the box" that is to say measured the cat to predicate about it.

[Age]

For the sake of honesty I have to test that theory though I'd like to accept it.
A mug of coffee doesn't experience anything. The planet Mars doesn't experience anything. True, Wordsworth thought every flower enjoys the air it breathes but this might be taken to be pathetic fallacy.Quoted.

Does the experience of a sewer rat validate extramental being?

If you are asking me this, then what does 'extramental being' mean to you?

If we are to say, for example, that 'extra-mental' means something like the 'world' outside of the Mind or thought. Then, to me, absolutely ANY and EVERY thing outside of the mental 'thinking/knowing world' validates its being. That is; ANY and EVERY thing that is sensed, from the human body, through the five senses, BEFORE all that transferred information turns into the mental thinking/knowing, self-validates that it is an 'extra-mental' 'being'.

But, you might have a completely different meaning of 'extramental being' than this one?

Also, I find your question somewhat ambiguous. Are you asking,
'Does the experience of a sewer rat, in what the sewer rat itself experiences, validate extramental being?
Or,
Does the experience, from the human being, of a sewer rat, itself, validate etramental being?

Or, in other words, are you asking;
If the experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, et cetera of another living being, like a sewer rat, other than the human animal being, validate beings beyond/outside of the mental/thinking human being.
Or,
If the experiences that another animal being has, like a sewer rat, validate that there are beings beyond/outside of the mental/thinking human being?

This, however, sadly, and unfortunately may just be confusing things more?

Do things (stones, rats, mugs of coffee and so forth) exist as objects of space and time or is their existence dependent on mind/thought/ideas?

Both. Things exist as objects, but not as objects of space and time, AND, KNOWING 'existence' itself, and therefore KNOWING of thing/object's 'existence' as well, is dependent on thee Mind, and the human brain.

If they exist as objects in space and time we can measure them. Measuring them is predicating ideas about them.Schrodinger's cat is either exclusively alive or exclusively dead and we don't know which state the cat is in until we open the box. Schrodinger's cat shows minds/ideas/thoughts don't make something to be the case but reveal something to be the case. Ontologically both possibility and probability exist however we cannot know any probability until we have "opened the box" that is to say measured the cat to predicate about it.

What view are you wanting to express by saying this?

[Skepdick]

Quite why you need me to say it again is a mystery.

What they don't seem to teach you in Philosophy is the difference between stateless and stateful protocols.
The distinction between synchronous and asynchronous communication.

Pretty important distinction if you care about effective communication.

Still, I'll humour you. I perceive the red red as red.

So in which year of Philosophy do they teach you obscurantism?

IS THIS THE RED RED YOU PERCEIVE AS RED?
or
IS THIS THE RED RED YOU PERCEIVE AS RED?

What is not theoretical is the perception of those letters, nor that the perception corresponds to what in English is red.

THIS COLOR IS THIS COLOR irrespective of the language you describe it in.

The relationship between THIS COLOR and the word "red" may be true in one language.
The relationship between THIS COLOR and the word "red" may be true in another language.

And so, while I can infer (statistically) that you probably speak the former, I can determine empirically that you DON'T speak the latter if you just choose a damn color!

I trust my instincts, but I also verify my instincts. You wouldn't want me to mis-understand your meaning now, would you?

So Skepdick, I am not making any claim about what I perceive, I am telling you a fact.

You've told me no such thing. Your linguistic description of colors are not facts - they are interpretations.

I am asking you whether you are interpreting THIS COLOR as "red"; or THIS COLOR as "red".

The fact on the matter is you are refusing to communicate your interpretation schema.

[Belinda]

If you are asking me this, then what does 'extramental being' mean to you?

If we are to say, for example, that 'extra-mental' means something like the 'world' outside of the Mind or thought. Then, to me, absolutely ANY and EVERY thing outside of the mental 'thinking/knowing world' validates its being. That is; ANY and EVERY thing that is sensed, from the human body, through the five senses, BEFORE all that transferred information turns into the mental thinking/knowing, self-validates that it is an 'extra-mental' 'being'.

But, you might have a completely different meaning of 'extramental being' than this one?

Also, I find your question somewhat ambiguous. Are you asking,
'Does the experience of a sewer rat, in what the sewer rat itself experiences, validate extramental being?
Or,
Does the experience, from the human being, of a sewer rat, itself, validate etramental being?

Or, in other words, are you asking;
If the experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, et cetera of another living being, like a sewer rat, other than the human animal being, validate beings beyond/outside of the mental/thinking human being.
Or,
If the experiences that another animal being has, like a sewer rat, validate that there are beings beyond/outside of the mental/thinking human being?

This, however, sadly, and unfortunately may just be confusing things more?

Do things (stones, rats, mugs of coffee and so forth) exist as objects of space and time or is their existence dependent on mind/thought/ideas?

Both. Things exist as objects, but not as objects of space and time, AND, KNOWING 'existence' itself, and therefore KNOWING of thing/object's 'existence' as well, is dependent on thee Mind, and the human brain.

If they exist as objects in space and time we can measure them. Measuring them is predicating ideas about them.Schrodinger's cat is either exclusively alive or exclusively dead and we don't know which state the cat is in until we open the box. Schrodinger's cat shows minds/ideas/thoughts don't make something to be the case but reveal something to be the case. Ontologically both possibility and probability exist however we cannot know any probability until we have "opened the box" that is to say measured the cat to predicate about it.

What view are you wanting to express by saying this?

Do you really think objects can exist outwith space and time? Can an object exist that has no length and breadth, or last forever?

I am wanting to express the view possibility is the case i.e. something material exists but we cannot know just what is possible until we experience it.

[uwot]

What they don't seem to teach you in Philosophy is the difference between stateless and stateful protocols.
The distinction between synchronous and asynchronous communication.

Yep, I was never taught of any of that.

Pretty important distinction if you care about effective communication.

Frankly Skepdick, if your inability to understand 'red' is one of the advantages, I can see why they didn't bother.

What is not theoretical is the perception of those letters, nor that the perception corresponds to what in English is red.

THIS COLOR IS THIS COLOR irrespective of the language you describe it in.

Yup. And in English it's red.

So Skepdick, I am not making any claim about what I perceive, I am telling you a fact.

You've told me no such thing. Your linguistic description of colors are not facts - they are interpretations.

I'm not describing red when I describe the letters as red. I have no idea how to describe red without reference to examples. Another of the puzzles undergraduates get tossed is how would you describe colours to someone born blind? The fact is the letters are

THIS COLOR

which any competent speaker of English who has seen red can communicate perfectly effectively by saying they are red.

[Skepdick]

Frankly Skepdick, if your inability to understand 'red' is one of the advantages, I can see why they didn't bother.

Given the ambiguity of language and your inability to navigate around it, I think they cheated you out of a useful life skill.

Yup. And in English it's red.

IS THIS THE ENGLISH RED?
or
IS THIS THE ENGLISH RED?

I'm not describing red when I describe the letters as red. I have no idea how to describe red without reference to examples.

I have given you examples. You aren't referencing them!

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF RED.
HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF RED

Which one is your "red"?

Which any competent speaker of English who has seen red can communicate perfectly effectively by saying they are red.

I guess I am not speaking English then. Teach me?

IS THIS THE ENGLISH RED?
or
IS THIS THE ENGLISH RED?

[uwot]

I'm not describing red when I describe the letters as red. I have no idea how to describe red without reference to examples.

I have given you examples. You aren't referencing them!

'Ere Skepdick, you know those loonies who splutter incoherently that you aren't doing something you've just done? You're one of them:

The fact is the letters are

THIS COLOR

which any competent speaker of English who has seen red can communicate perfectly effectively by saying they are red.

Thanks for the laugh Skepdick.

[Skepdick]

'Ere Skepdick, you know those loonies who splutter incoherently that you aren't doing something you've just done? You're one of them:

The fact is the letters are

THIS COLOR

Aaaaaah! Is THAT how you use the word "red"? Why didn't you say so?

Took you two fucking weeks to communicate it!

which any competent speaker of English who has seen red can communicate perfectly effectively by saying they are red.

I have seen all the colors. They don't come with English labels. They don't come with any labels.