The Existential Crisis

[Skepdick]

Well next time you get a red light, and there are big trucks coming from both sides, you should remember that red is just an invention of stupid philosophers, and you don't believe in it.

THIS MEANS STOP.
THIS MEANS GO.

I've never seen a traffic light that shows "red".

Or maybe

THIS MEANS STOP.
THIS MEANS GO.

You should stick to this one, show them who's boss.

Look how quickly you agreed that "red" doesn't mean anything!!!

Wasn't difficult, eh?

[Belinda]

Skepdick wrote:

With respect to emotional response the key property to me is that it's autonomous - it works however it works. I don't think you could choose to have a different response to that picture.

Try feel angry by seeing it. Can you? I can't.

But pleasure is not cognitive whereas anger takes an object of anger. I might be pleased about the pretty spectrum because it's a helpful illustration, but this is not what I meant to say. That's why I said it was a treat for my eyes , I was trying not to imply cognition. I was not pleased about something . I doubt if nothing but colours could please me if the picture had been about some recognisable thing. True, the colours were ordered according to what I have learned is the proper order and that's no doubt partly why the experience was peaceful and harmonic.

I can't be angry unless I there is something recognisably cognitive to be angry about, and this includes irrational anger due to some delusion. I might be 'mentally' ill and experience fear which is not rooted in cognition but is caused by some chemical imbalance. Anger is compounded of fear and cognition of the cause of the anger. For instance I might have looked at the picture of the spectrum and thought "That bloody sentimental rainbow again!"

I think at least those two, pleasure and fear, immediate objectless emotional reactions are genetic in origin although they require experience and especially linguistic experience(as explained by Flash Dangerpants and uwot) for the reaction to happen.

[Age]

Do you have any examples of what real purpose they have served you?

The principle of maximum entropy is the OPENNESS you preach.
It's the "I neither believe nor disbelieve anything" part.

Practicing it allows for maximum learning. It serves me well to learn from first principles.

Okay. From being OPEN, and just asking Truly OPEN clarifying questions, I am learning, slowly, how to better understand you.

Your choice of words, and some of their many meanings, just takes some clarifying to find out exactly what you Truly mean.

[Age]

Thanks Skepdick
Are there different machines for naming their place on the spectrum according to whether the colour is emitted by a light source or by reflected light?

No. We cannot distinguish such things at the physics level.

We can. We just cannot do it YET for such things at the physics level.

Rather than the talking about "identical" things physicists speak of indistinguishable things.

But, saying 'indistinguishable things' is, coincidentally, indistinguishable from or identical to just saying 'identical things'.

If things cannot be observed to be different, then they are just indistinguishable, or, in other words, just identical. But, obviously, if two different things are being observed, then they are not the exact same thing, and thus would not be the exact same.

Just because human beings can not YET distinguish the same named things apart from each other, at ALL levels of physics, does in no way infer that they are the exact same thing.

If two observed things have identical properties you can't distinguish them from one another -

Obviously if there are two observed things, then there are two observed 'different' things. Now, if they have identical properties and a human being cannot distinguish them from one another, then that in now means that they cannot be distinguished from one another. If they are both being observed, then they CAN and, in fact, ARE being distinguished from one another.

but worse than that you can't distinguish whether you are seeing the "original" photon or a reflected one.

If we are talking about observing two things at the exact same moment, and we have traced back the cause and effect, then I would suggest that we can distinguish between two observed things.

In fact, things get so bizarre at such small scale physicists even have a one electron theory in which every electron observed is "the same" electron.

Okay, but it is only a theory, which therefore means that it may have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what actually happens and occurs.

Whether or not there are different machines that increase our analytic power to understand light, is specifying a position on the spectrum evidence for the specificity of a colour? I imagine that red for instance is at its most intense or saturated hue on a spectrum when it is at the median position between purple and orange. So may we not say there is a definitive red?

Well. That doesn't work unless you have already defined "purple" and "orange" precisely. But it's a spectrum - we don't define points - we define bands.

But who supposedly does not define points - and only defines bands?

So "red" is all the waves which have 625–740 nanometers wavelength, but this is the crux of it; and the crux of all human categorical reasoning.

But we can get much further down, or, in other words, to the actual crux of this. That is; if we Truly wanted to.

625nm is red
730 (625 + 115) nm is red.
But 624 (625 - 1) nm is not red.

But human beings can just rename ALL of the 105 different nonometered wavelengths differently, and then any supposed "problem" or "issue" is resolved. Unless, of course, any human being wants to make up any more 'problems' or 'issues' here.

Because it's a continuum Mathematically speaking there are "infinite colors" on it. 625.000000000....1nm is one color. 625.000000000....2nm is another etc.

So, no real issue nor problem at all then.

Humanly speaking there are as many colors as you can recognize individually. Which is about 8-10 million given the limitations of your eyes.

And therefore this is solved, which by the looks of it was NEVER a real issue NOR problem at all, correct?

[Age]

Is there only one consciousness, or, are there more than one consciousness?

Oneness is difficult to adequately comprehend

'Oneness' can NOT be to difficult at all to comprehend, especially if some one like me, that is; autistic, slow, stupid, and a complete nonintellectual, came to UNDERSTAND It FULLY, and in extremely easy and simple terms.

because we’re so immersed in a world of things that seem other to us.

But there is NO such thing as a "world of things". There is ONLY thee One Thing, generally known as this Universe, which is just perceived to be made up of many different and separated things.

I REALLY WISH 'you' would just answer the VERY SIMPLE clarifying question that I asked.

The opening line of the Tao Te Ching suggests that the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.

There are a LOT of "things", which human beings have said and written, but, just because there are lines written down and sayings, said by human beings, this does NOT make them 100%, without doubt, irrefutably True.

If the tao that can be named is not the eternal tao, then I suggest the 'Thing' that can be named, and which is actually eternal, is thee 'Universe', Itself. In other words, ANY 'Thing' that can be named and which refers to or means ALL 'things', then is Itself thee eternal 'Thing'. The name 'Universe', once meant ALL 'things' or ALL-THERE-IS, and which STILL DOES mean this, to some people, anyway.

In other words, as soon as it’s named, it’s lost, because we’ve created a dichotomy.

But the two words, 'eternal Universe' are NOT two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.

Another opening line of a book might become the It that is NOT named is lost.

Oneness means just that: only one.

Okay great, and fair enough. And, pretty OBVIOUS, I might add.

But what you said here has obviously absolutely certainly NOTHING WHATSOEVER AT ALL to do with the actually clarifying question that I asked you. Which was;
Is there only one consciousness, or, is there more than one consciousness?

The instant we label or name it, it’s something else, separate —it’s no longer the unity of oneness.

WHY do you propose such a thing?

Please explain HOW, if we label or name 'eternity', for example, eternity, then eternity becomes something else, separate? How does eternity, which obviously STILL infers and means oneness, suddenly, in your view, becomes no longer the unity of oneness just because we named it?

How could the naming of 'eternity', for example, suddenly mean that 'eternity' is no the longer the oneness of 'eternity'?

However, this does not mean we cannot know ourself because we are the knowing that cannot be made into an object.

Of course, 'we' cannot be what we are NOT. Obviously, we cannot be a physically seen object. To even think so would be to ridicule who and what we Truly ARE.

For objects know nothing,

Has there ever even been any suggestion, by anyone, that physically seen objects know things?

for objects are known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness.

This has NEVER been in dispute. I just asked the EXTREMELY SIMPLE and OPEN clarifying question;

Is there only one consciousness, or, is there more than one consciousness?

When you do answer this question OPENLY and Truly Honestly, then I will better KNOW how to explain things to you in a much simpler and easier way for you to grasp and understand.

Just as it is absurd for a single wave to see itself as separate from the ocean, so it is for any of us not to recognise our oneness with what we know as infinity.

You just labeled or named 'it', 'infinity', so does that now mean that 'it' is now something else, separate —it’s no longer the unity of oneness.? Or, when 'you' instantly name or label 'it', oneness is not lost.

The Existential Crisis — is a fallacy.


.

Okay.

But what is 'the existential crisis' actually. I have NOT yet observed one. So, I am not yet fully aware of what one actually is, nor do I fully understand what one is even meant to be.

[Age]

You put it perfectly well yourself:

There's nothing more to it - nothing that language can ever give you that you don't already have via direct experience.

But there are far more pressing implications on you agreeing to this point and insisting that THIS COLOR is "red" is a fact.

Direct experience happens before language, but you are calling it "factual".

So why are the direct experiences of our emotions/feelings arising from observing undesirable social behaviour not factual?

But they are.

Is someone suggesting that they are not?

[Atla]

THIS MEANS STOP.
THIS MEANS GO.

I've never seen a traffic light that shows "red".

Or maybe

THIS MEANS STOP.
THIS MEANS GO.

You should stick to this one, show them who's boss.

Look how quickly you agreed that "red" doesn't mean anything!!!

Wasn't difficult, eh?

I didn't, I was merely trying to get you to have an accident (although someone like you probably doesn't have a license).

"Red" refers to a range of qualia that's probably roughly the same for most people. You have a very different brain than most people, so who knows what the hell is going on in there when you see a red light.

[Age]

Direct experience happens before language, but you are calling it "factual".

Yup. Bit like 'red' is contingent, so is 'factual'.

How are you defining the 'factual' word here?

Just because something like 'red' is contingent on other things, does not mean it is 'factual', (depending of course on how you are defining the 'factual' word here).

For example, someone might call a 'tree' 'red', and then say this is because 'red' is contingent, (on some other things), so is 'factual'.

Absolutely EVERY thing is contingent (on some other things), but this certainly does not make what human beings 'think' actually 'factual'. For example, if human beings said the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, because this is contingent on what they observe, then does what those human beings observe make it 'factual'?

Language is messy and imprecise,

What most people understand, and mean, is extremely messy and imprecise.

Language is just the means of translating and sharing meaning and understanding. So, although it appears to be 'language' itself that is messy and imprecise. Words, and thus language, have very particular definitions and meaning. Although, every one can give their own meaning and own definition to the words, and thus language, that they use. So, it is actually the meaning, behind the language and words used, which human beings all have individually, and thus differently, which is what is truly messy and imprecise. For example, I could say to you, "I do not want to argue with you", and you would have absolutely NO idea of what I am actually meaning. Although the words, and thus language, is very precise and not messy at all. You know what the language is, precisely, 'english', and you know what the words mean to you, precisely, so there is nothing messy at all there. However, you have absolutely NO idea what I am meaning. Although I know what the language is also, precisely, 'english, and I know what the words mean to me, again precisely. So, where is the confusion and misunderstanding coming from exactly?

The understanding of, and the meaning you have for, those words, and thus language is completely and utterly DIFFERENT, and therefore this is WHERE the messiness and imprecision comes from.

which is why I keep saying that it is contextual, but 'fact' is a suitable synonym for 'direct experience' in a wide range of contexts.

For some they 'directly experience' the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, but this obviously is NOT 'factual' at all. This could not be further from what thee actual Truth IS. So how could 'fact' be a supposed "suitable synonym" for 'direct experience'? In what "wide range of contexts" are you actually talking about here?

Again as Descartes pointed out, the only thing that you cannot doubt is that there are direct experiences; one of which is called 'red' - again in certain contexts.

But 'direct experiences' can be doubted quite frequently.

For example:
Did that person actually say that?
Was that really what I saw?
I am not sure what that tastes like.
I do not know what that smell is.
I do not know how I feel about that.

Also, that there are direct experiences could actually be doubted.

To me, there is only One thing that can be KNOWN, for sure. So, that means every thing else could be or is, in fact, Truly in doubt.

So why are the direct experiences of our emotions/feelings arising from observing undesirable social behaviour not factual?

Where did I say they aren't?
Anyway; you're sticking with your sound is an electromagnetic phenomenon are you?

Technically speaking it's the "electro magnetic spectrum" though... The frequencies you perceive with your ears are "sound"

[Age]

Emotional response is a process. What is the difference if any between process and entity?

I think they are just different words for the same thing. To me everything is a "process", but that's because of a peculiarity in my metaphysic.
I accept the CTD principle.

Is there any thing you look at, which is not viewed through the 'lens' of computers?

Is every thing to 'you' an 'entity'?

With respect to emotional response the key property to me is that it's autonomous - it works however it works.

Every thing works - 'however it works', but that itself does not make it autonomous.

The reason emotions appear to be autonomous is because of the speed at which they arise.

The emotional response that arises however is depended upon the previous past experiences.

I don't think you could choose to have a different response to that picture.

The almost immediate first response to that picture may not be consciously chosen, but depending on past experiences, which have created the previous thoughts and emotions, then determine what the emotional response for the forthcoming pictures.

Try feel angry by seeing it. Can you? I can't.

But "others" can. Again, depending on the previous past experiences.

Once you learn how to do some thing, then doing that becomes easy to do.

My emotional sensibility qualified that pic of the pretty spectrum. Qualified/ qualia . Verbs and nouns.

Well. I could similarly ask "Is there a difference between qualification and classification?". Classified/class is just verbs and nouns too.
It seems synonymous/analogous.

Most of all - it sounds to me like good ol' emotional intelligence. You are able to recognise, classify and label your emotions.

Which is not a whole lot different to "How many colors do you see?"
The answer to which is "As many as you can uniquely recognize.".

The answer could also be very different, from my perspective. But then again my past experiences have led me to SEE and VIEW things VERY differently than most people can.

The same with emotions. Which seems apt for the phrase "Experiencing the full range of human emotions."
People who aren't emotionally intelligent have very primitive languages to talk about their emotions. Happy. Angry. Sad.

Here is that 'superiority complex' coming to the forefront again.

Also, this could be said to be VERY different from colors. But, unless one is Truly interested into looking into this FULLY, then there is NO use in discussing this further.

Is like talking about "red", "blue" and "green" without knowing about hue, brightness, saturation, colourfulness.

And, there is NO use in knowing about "hue", "brightness", "saturation", NOR "colorfulness" to just talk about 'red', 'blue', and 'green'. Because, if that is all one wants to talk about, then that is all one is interested in and has to know about.

The way this is being proposed here now is, two people are having a discussion about one thing. One person adds something else to the discussion, and then suddenly accuses of and tells the "other" that they do not know what they are talking about just because they do not know about these other things. The "other" person may not even want to talk about these other things and may just want to stay on the discussion about the one thing.

[Age]

Physics says this is a purely analogue smooth and unbanded sequence. What you "SEE" is inside your head, they are called qualia.

Moron. Do you see any bands in the spectrum? How many?

You understand that the heat you feel on your skin and the color you see in your head are part of the same smooth analogue, yes?

Are you suggesting that there is in fact NO distinction NOR separation at all?

The word "qualia" doesn't fucking tell me anything!
Exactly like the word "red" doesn't tell me anything!

So, are you saying that when you see or hear the word 'red', that that does not tell you absolutely ANY thing at all?

[Age]

The best answer I have is "Because it does.". It should be good enough?

"Qualia" is a word that we made up. Like the word "red".

Your emotional response to observing the spectrum is not made up.

Emotional response is a process. What is the difference if any between process and entity?

My emotional sensibility qualified that pic of the pretty spectrum. Qualified/ qualia . Verbs and nouns.

It's conceptual, but at such a low level and dealing in such fundamental concepts that you don't get much opportunity to see the mechanics in action so we aren't well equipped to think about it this way. I do know a couple of good examples though.

When it comes to colors, you won't find any mention of the colour blue in truly ancient sources, so by the time Homer's epics were written down, the colour existed, but for the original author, it seems likely they didn't see blue at all. It's as if somebody had to notice it and make up a word for it before anyone else really understood and saw it. Nothing physiological is likely to have changed though.
https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-did ... ce-science

It has also been said that there was no mention of the color 'orange' either, and that that color was just another shade of 'red'. So, what we could take from this is that once upon a time there was absolutely no mention of any color at all, which really goes without saying as it is blatantly obvious. But, is it as blatantly obvious that the number of colors that 'you', human beings, see and mention, in the days of when this is being written, is about as pre-historic as imagining that people did not mention 'orange' and 'blue' as colors previously?

'You', human beings, only have to experience, SEE, and name things for them to then become obvious, known, and well understood.

You can probably experience this sort of thing for yourself if you want. It's common for people who take wine tasting courses where they learn a new vocabulary to describe flavours to report subsequently that they gain the ability to taste new flavours they had never experienced before AFTER they get the conceptual framework to place those flavours into.

Weird shit, right?

Not at all.

The only reason human beings are not living in peace and harmony together as One now, when this is being written, is because they have just not YET learned how to, and thus also do not YET have the RIGHT vocabulary, or words, for this happen, just YET.

Once the conceptual framework is in place, and learned, then putting that framework into a position, which will create a Truly peaceful world for Everyone, just falls into place, very naturally, and very simply and very easily, indeed.

But delve around in the brain and it seems the bases senses are linked to everything else such as memeory and language centres and so on in a way that defies the common sense assumption that each bit of your brain does one specific task as ideas or whatever roll down a factory production line.

[Age]

When it comes to colors, you won't find any mention of the colour blue in truly ancient sources, so by the time Homer's epics were written down, the colour existed, but for the original author, it seems likely they didn't see blue at all. It's as if somebody had to notice it and make up a word for it before anyone else really understood and saw it. Nothing physiological is likely to have changed though.
https://www.sciencealert.com/humans-did ... ce-science

You can probably experience this sort of thing for yourself if you want. It's common for people who take wine tasting courses where they learn a new vocabulary to describe flavours to report subsequently that they gain the ability to taste new flavours they had never experienced before AFTER they get the conceptual framework to place those flavours into.

This kinda ties in with what I say about philosophy being story telling. A 'story' is a conceptual framework that very often has it's own language, the current shouting match about 'qualia' being a case in point. Having to learn someone else's conceptual framework so that you can, in some cases, quite literally see and taste the same things takes some effort.

But NOT for young children. But, then again, they ARE Truly OPEN, to learning.

Also, one can NEVER Truly KNOW if they are literally seeing and tasting the same things "others" are. This is because there is NO actual way of KNOWING what is being seen or tasted is the exact same thing. For all I KNOW what you class as 'red' could be my 'blue' or vice-versa.

'Agreement' itself, however, is the only way we can "know" that we are seeing and tasting the "same" thing.

As long as the 'story' matches, and is in agreement, then that is all that really matters for thee 'human being'.

The thing is, once you speak the language you see things which are so obvious to you, you think anyone who can't see it is either blind or stupid.

For example, like SEEING how EASY it Truly IS for EVERY one to be living in peace AND harmony together.

But KNOWING WHY "others" are not yet able to see this FACT relieves the frustration of not yet knowing how to explains things FULLY so that "others" are then also ABLE to SEE this.

By the way, obviously if one is NOT yet able to SEE and UNDERSTAND some things, then they are 'blind' to them. If one, however, is 'stupid' or not all depends on just how OPEN or CLOSED they are being.

Conversely, the people who can't see something assume those who can are delusional.

Also, very good insight and acknowledgement.

Weird shit, right?

Right! But as Thomas Kuhn said: "When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person could have written them."

But unfortunately, a thinker does not become, so called, "important" until AFTER the apparent "absurdities" are usually already understood for what they Truly were, which, sadly, may be well after that thinker is not around anymore to be able to CLARIFY FULLY what was being said, and Truly MEANT.

Anyone interested in this stuff can read 'Through the Language Glass' by Guy Deutscher here: https://archive.org/stream/ThroughTheLa ... s_djvu.txt
Or there's a much shorter piece on Kuhn's take by yours truly here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

[Atla]

'Oneness' can NOT be to difficult at all to comprehend, especially if some one like me, that is; autistic, slow, stupid, and a complete nonintellectual, came to UNDERSTAND It FULLY, and in extremely easy and simple terms.

Has it ever occured to you that maybe you really are just a mentally ill idiot, and you were never open to what 'Oneness' actually is?

[uwot]

Has it ever occured to you that maybe you really are just a mentally ill idiot...

The only people that never occurs to are mentally ill idiots.

[uwot]

Again as Descartes pointed out, the only thing that you cannot doubt is that there are direct experiences; one of which is called 'red' - again in certain contexts.

But 'direct experiences' can be doubted quite frequently.

For example:
Did that person actually say that?
Was that really what I saw?
I am not sure what that tastes like.
I do not know what that smell is.
I do not know how I feel about that.

Well look, your brain is working all the time, turning a bunch of colours, sounds, smells, tastes, physical and emotional feelings into something that fits a narrative you have been living since the moment some spark of consciousness woke you up in your mother's womb. You can doubt the story your brain has made up for you from the input, but you cannot doubt that there is input, even if it is your brain making its own shit up.

Also, that there are direct experiences could actually be doubted.

Nah. The source might be doubted, but not the experience.