For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
It's not 'human' logic, it's the logic of there being things and states of affairs.Lacewing wrote:Our logic is human logic, is it not? How accurate and applicable do you think human logic can be beyond the human reality (physical or otherwise)?
Greta wrote:... it makes sense to focus mostly on the good rather than the negative.
Alpha wrote:"to focus mostly on the good rather than the negative" might simply be a defense mechanism rather than something that truly makes sense.
Greta wrote:It makes sense if you want to be happy. We cannot write ourselves out of the equation when considering reality, as though we are standing outside of it. We are part of reality, a local expression of our environment. Our nature a reflection of the big picture in small scale, a part of the universe's imperfect fractals.
can you, or anyone else, explain to me what determines a person's lot in life (i don't mean cause-and-effect, more like "why", not "how" person A is rich, and person B is poor, or person C is perfectly healthy, while person D is bedridden since birth)? it's easy (as you or lacewing admitted) to be positive and full of advice, under certain circumstances, and not so easy (even impossible) under others. the "why" is possibly the most significant question of all.Greta wrote:Consider the difference between acknowledging the negative and focusing on it.
Greta wrote:Besides, we don't know what happens when we die so we don't ultimately know how helpful or harmful death is.
Alpha wrote:so we should just go with the flow, and not question things?
wow! you're full of accusations today/tonight, aren't you? i never said that there necessarily isn't anything after death. in fact i lean towards the opposite of that. what i need to know (among other things) very badly, is what it is that's after death (if anything), and whether or not there's any compensation (of any sort), or ultimate justice of some type.Greta wrote:Nope, that's actually what you are doing - assuming rather than leaving your options open. I am still questioning and you are not. You have already convinced yourself that there is nothing after we die and there was nothing before the big bang. People with that view tend to view others as naively avoiding facing the unpleasant truth that there was nothing, that we were nothing and will become nothing, and that it is all entirely meaningless.
yes, learned helplessness might apply to many people, however, that doesn't invalidate all the arguments of these individuals.Greta wrote:However, it's hard to imagine a more negative view. When people embrace the negative it always seems to me that that they trying to prevent disappointment. Perhaps they have been disappointed too many times and have come to expect disappointment as standard. So they imagine the crappiest and most uninspiring possible scenario and claim it to be truth - a truth that is more based on Murphy's Law than on realistic observation of reality, which inevitably brings wonder and awe.
i refuse to be delusional -for the sake of happiness- on principle.Greta wrote:Another thought: human creative capacities? We can can transform our views, capacities and performance with creative imagination, as any sports psychologist will tell you. So what was not reality becomes reality. So "delusions" can be incorporated into reality.
alpha wrote:infinity might be considered a mistake among some finitists, but certainly not among all or even most mathematicians.
fortunately for me, applied mathematics, or physics, isn't my most pressing concern. i don't necessarily believe all existence to be physical, therefor, abstracts, and aristotelian logic, is my weapon of choice.Obvious Leo wrote:Most mathematicians are not schooled in mathematical philosophy but the most significant branch of applied mathematics is the science of physics, where mathematical philosophy is crucial. In physics infinity most certainly equals mistake and eradicating infinities from the equations of physics is the single most intractable mathematical task the physicists routinely face because their business is the mathematics of the universe. The universe is a closed and thus informationally finite entity and under the constraints of Cantorean set theory an infinite set cannot be contained within a finite one. Physicists are generally not well schooled in mathematical philosophy either, although there are some notable exceptions, but all physicists are adamant that an infinite quantity is not a physically real construct.
I believe what you said is right on the money, not that money should be a factor in what you said.Lacewing wrote:A few things...
Why does there need to be a point for humans ANY MORE than there needs to be a point for anything else on this planet? People who think there needs to be a point or a purpose in order for there to be any VALUE in an experience are, perhaps, excessively controlling and judging and limiting what they are able to experience. Our judgments about what makes this good or bad do not reflect a higher reality. It just feels good or bad in this moment to us... and that's part of the experience!
IF there is any grander cosmic scheme/purpose... it seems logical to suspect that it's BEYOND the limited and contrived notions of human thoughts/ideas/fears/reasoning/understanding. In which case, we STILL don't know/have a greater "point/purpose" so it's as if there isn't one for US, and we're STILL just here for the experience. So what? Why not see what we can do with it, and with our limited selves, and with everything that's thrown at us? Why must we think we're part of some unique divine role/purpose greater than this, and that the GOAL is BEYOND this? Why are we so disrespectful of "this" just as it is?
People who see no value in being here because it doesn't conform to their idea of being enjoyable or worthwhile, may be missing an opportunity to experience expansion in the face of whatever is thrown at them. There's nothing quite like transforming a totally crappy experience into something glorious. Yes, sometimes life feels too hard and miserable to transform. Fine, then don't. Roll around in pain for awhile as part of the experience. If you get to a point where you can eventually drop whatever thoughts are associated with that, then perhaps you'll discover other aspects (or whole new realms) to be experienced.
Lastly, determining that there is no overall purpose/point (that we can be aware of) can be VERY FREEING and empowering! It releases us from our fears and judgments and limiting fabrications. (Only the ego/identity thinks that's dreadful/unthinkable and clings to itself.) When we stop being so completely intoxicated by all the stuff we make up from moment to moment... and start seeing value in ALL AS IT IS without needing to assign a point/purpose (because all of that is made up too)... we can get our own creations/thoughts OUT OF THE WAY of a larger NATURAL flow, and experience this experience from a whole new dynamic. Simply, WE ARE IN OUR OWN WAY!
Man has a problem with something from nothing, as he only knows a chain of events, in his rather short term of existence. Though it's not final, as he borrowed things, that he returns. The belief that existence is a chain ad-infinitum, is just as incredible as one that has a beginning and an end. Try to actually fathom either one, and ones brain tends to hurt. Why? Because it's something that's currently much bigger than us. Which doesn't necessarily mean that one day we won't be capable. So for now, we can each have our theories, not that they necessarily amount to anything 'absolute;' like I said, for 'now.'alpha wrote:alpha wrote:"underlying pressure can only happen to existing things. how can any pressure happen to nothing? basically your argument hinges on the necessity of there existing things that were infinitely old (uncaused), to which underlying pressure can apply.what kind of accusation is that?! what i'm saying is that there existed things before the big bang, in order for the big bang to come out of them. you just agreed with me on that. my point is that to avoid an infinite regress, you must admit to the existence of something(s) that's infinitely old, which was/is the initial cause of all of this. my beef is with that initial cause, since all subsequent causes are inevitable (as you also agree), so it would be pointless debating about them.Greta wrote:You assume that the big bang came from nothing. I think it more likely that inflation stemmed from conditions we don't yet understand.
Well I take your point but think that existence has no antipode is this sense as all the things you mention are relations between existents as from my point of view if you with to have a relation then you need two actual things.alpha wrote:mostly for comparison, to contrast something existent with its antipode. beauty vs no beauty. knowledge vs no knowledge. emotions vs no emotions. thought vs no thought. needs vs no needs. and so on.
I did say suggesting but what would you say then?alpha wrote:i wouldn't necessarily say that.
Not sure being 'bummed' about it would be that helpful but can understand why they might be but this is not the point as you were saying it's about being bummed about having 'higher' goals that one cannot achieve. If this quadriplegic has the goal to become a long-distance runner then he'll need to take stock of how, so he'll need to get upon some kind of robotics or biological/medical regrowth program or invent or discover such things himself, etc, etc, that he may die before achieving his aim is neither here nor there as long as he tries he should be satisfied, if he sets this aim but does nothing to strive for it then his dissatisfaction is self-inflicted and yes, unintelligent behaviour.i strongly disagree with this claim. you're essentially saying that a genius who's a quadriplegic (don't say "what about stephen hawking?") shouldn't be bummed about it, and should set achievable goals instead, because he'd be less intelligent otherwise.
alpha wrote:i strongly disagree with this claim. you're essentially saying that a genius who's a quadriplegic (don't say "what about stephen hawking?") shouldn't be bummed about it, and should set achievable goals instead, because he'd be less intelligent otherwise.
"neither here nor there"? where else, then?Arising_uk wrote:Not sure being 'bummed' about it would be that helpful but can understand why they might be but this is not the point as you were saying it's about being bummed about having 'higher' goals that one cannot achieve. If this quadriplegic has the goal to become a long-distance runner then he'll need to take stock of how, so he'll need to get upon some kind of robotics or biological/medical regrowth program or invent or discover such things himself, etc, etc, that he may die before achieving his aim is neither here nor there
"should"? unsubstantiated claim.Arising_uk wrote:as long as he tries he should be satisfied
doing something to achieve one's goals, or not, isn't very relevant to my argument. the point i'm trying to make (let's consider this from a purely philosophical perspective, and not subjective) is that no one has the right to dictate (or even suggest) what any person should want, or not want. no one should say that you should/shouldn't have this or that ambition (even if they're supposedly unrealistic), and so on.Arising_uk wrote:if he sets this aim but does nothing to strive for it then his dissatisfaction is self-inflicted and yes, unintelligent behaviour.
No one knows for sure. Some say it's chance. Others say it's karma. I think it's chance, just as one seed might blow into a juicy cow pat in a field while another travels another 100 metres further and lands in the middle of a busy highway. Why? Because, failing major interruptions, every possibility will play out. "Why me?" people ask in despair. Because it had to be someone. Why not me?alpha wrote:can you, or anyone else, explain to me what determines a person's lot in life (i don't mean cause-and-effect, more like "why", not "how" person A is rich, and person B is poor, or person C is perfectly healthy, while person D is bedridden since birth)? it's easy (as you or lacewing admitted) to be positive and full of advice, under certain circumstances, and not so easy (even impossible) under others. the "why" is possibly the most significant question of all.
Greta wrote:Besides, we don't know what happens when we die so we don't ultimately know how helpful or harmful death is.
Alpha wrote:so we should just go with the flow, and not question things?
Greta wrote:Nope, that's actually what you are doing - assuming rather than leaving your options open. I am still questioning and you are not. You have already convinced yourself that there is nothing after we die and there was nothing before the big bang. People with that view tend to view others as naively avoiding facing the unpleasant truth that there was nothing, that we were nothing and will become nothing, and that it is all entirely meaningless.
I don't think I've ever seriously thought about justice in the afterlife. What would be the point of "justice"? People are born innocent and clueless and make their way as best they can. Some people manage to screw up their lives monumentally (eg. Hitler) but, if someone's a screwed up person then there's no doubt a good reason for it.Alpha wrote:wow! you're full of accusations today/tonight, aren't you? i never said that there necessarily isn't anything after death. in fact i lean towards the opposite of that. what i need to know (among other things) very badly, is what it is that's after death (if anything), and whether or not there's any compensation (of any sort), or ultimate justice of some type.
I can't be bother going back and quoting but you certainly gave the impression that that's what you thought.
I took that as meaning you were disputing my claim because you believed there was nothing before the big bang. Please correct me if I've misunderstood your meaning there."underlying pressure can only happen to existing things. how can any pressure happen to nothing?
However, it's hard to imagine a more negative view. When people embrace the negative it always seems to me that that they trying to prevent disappointment. Perhaps they have been disappointed too many times and have come to expect disappointment as standard. So they imagine the crappiest and most uninspiring possible scenario and claim it to be truth - a truth that is more based on Murphy's Law than on realistic observation of reality, which inevitably brings wonder and awe.
It doesn't invalidate them. Yes, the truth may be the very most dull possibility - basically a mechanistic interruption of otherwise eternal nothingness. We don't know. Then again, one of the numerous other hypothesised possibilities about the deeper nature of reality may be more correct.Alpha wrote:yes, learned helplessness might apply to many people, however, that doesn't invalidate all the arguments of these individuals.
Another thought: human creative capacities? We can can transform our views, capacities and performance with creative imagination, as any sports psychologist will tell you. So what was not reality becomes reality. So "delusions" can be incorporated into reality.
If a work of imagination becomes reality, is it a delusion? An architect's vision is simply a work of imagination until the plans are drawn. Out of that work of imagination comes a building. The famous basketball practice test is a more everyday example of the power of imagination:Alpha wrote:i refuse to be delusional -for the sake of happiness- on principle.
We aren't just passive observers of reality but creators of it.Some website (to save me typing) wrote:A study using people shooting basketball free-throws was done to demonstrate the power of the imagination and visualization. Four groups were randomly selected from college students. At the beginning of the study, each group was to shoot a certain number of free throws and see how many were made. Next, each group was given one of the four following scenarios. The first group was the control group. These students were to do nothing different for the period of the study that related to basketball. Members of the second group were to practice shooting foul shots every day for one-half hour each day. The third group was told that each member was to not touch a basketball during the application period but was to simply sit and visualize making free-throws in his or her imagination for one half-hour each day. The fourth group was told to practice shooting for 15 minutes and also to visualize making free-throws for 15 minutes every day.
At the end of the testing period, each group was tested again to see if it had improved from the initial application. The results showed that the group that improved the most was the group that both visualized and practiced shooting the free throws. The group that made the second biggest improvement was the group that only practiced making free-throws in their imagination. This group improved more than the group that practiced shooting foul shots every day.
Psychology is real, make no mistake, that it's not all ironed out, is immaterial.alpha wrote:alpha wrote:i strongly disagree with this claim. you're essentially saying that a genius who's a quadriplegic (don't say "what about stephen hawking?") shouldn't be bummed about it, and should set achievable goals instead, because he'd be less intelligent otherwise."neither here nor there"? where else, then?Arising_uk wrote:Not sure being 'bummed' about it would be that helpful but can understand why they might be but this is not the point as you were saying it's about being bummed about having 'higher' goals that one cannot achieve. If this quadriplegic has the goal to become a long-distance runner then he'll need to take stock of how, so he'll need to get upon some kind of robotics or biological/medical regrowth program or invent or discover such things himself, etc, etc, that he may die before achieving his aim is neither here nor there
"should"? unsubstantiated claim.Arising_uk wrote:as long as he tries he should be satisfied
doing something to achieve one's goals, or not, isn't very relevant to my argument. the point i'm trying to make (let's consider this from a purely philosophical perspective, and not subjective) is that no one has the right to dictate (or even suggest) what any person should want, or not want. no one should say that you should/shouldn't have this or that ambition (even if they're supposedly unrealistic), and so on.Arising_uk wrote:if he sets this aim but does nothing to strive for it then his dissatisfaction is self-inflicted and yes, unintelligent behaviour.
i think it's clear (if we accept this notion) that "doing nothing to strive for one's unrealistic ambitions" is not unreasonable, because they are, after all, "unreasonable" ambitions.
Greta wrote:Thing is, you suggested that I didn't question things. My impression was that you believed in nothingness. I'd mentioned the possibility of the "big bang" being the result of some kind of built up pressure in a preceding form of reality that we don't know about. You replied:
alpha wrote:"underlying pressure can only happen to existing things. how can any pressure happen to nothing?
this was my reply in an earlier post:Greta wrote:I took that as meaning you were disputing my claim because you believed there was nothing before the big bang. Please correct me if I've misunderstood your meaning there.
alpha wrote:what kind of accusation is that?! what i'm saying is that there existed things before the big bang, in order for the big bang to come out of them. you just agreed with me on that. my point is that to avoid an infinite regress, you must admit to the existence of something(s) that's infinitely old, which was/is the initial cause of all of this. my beef is with that initial cause, since all subsequent causes are inevitable (as you also agree), so it would be pointless debating about them.
Greta wrote:Another thought: human creative capacities? We can can transform our views, capacities and performance with creative imagination, as any sports psychologist will tell you. So what was not reality becomes reality. So "delusions" can be incorporated into reality.
Alpha wrote:i refuse to be delusional -for the sake of happiness- on principle.
ok, we're "creators" of reality, but we still have no actual choice in what we "create", which is a problem.Greta wrote:If a work of imagination becomes reality, is it a delusion? An architect's vision is simply a work of imagination until the plans are drawn. Out of that work of imagination comes a building. The famous basketball practice test is a more everyday example of the power of imagination:
We aren't just passive observers of reality but creators of it.Some website (to save me typing) wrote:A study using people shooting basketball free-throws was done to demonstrate the power of the imagination and visualization. Four groups were randomly selected from college students. At the beginning of the study, each group was to shoot a certain number of free throws and see how many were made. Next, each group was given one of the four following scenarios. The first group was the control group. These students were to do nothing different for the period of the study that related to basketball. Members of the second group were to practice shooting foul shots every day for one-half hour each day. The third group was told that each member was to not touch a basketball during the application period but was to simply sit and visualize making free-throws in his or her imagination for one half-hour each day. The fourth group was told to practice shooting for 15 minutes and also to visualize making free-throws for 15 minutes every day.
At the end of the testing period, each group was tested again to see if it had improved from the initial application. The results showed that the group that improved the most was the group that both visualized and practiced shooting the free throws. The group that made the second biggest improvement was the group that only practiced making free-throws in their imagination. This group improved more than the group that practiced shooting foul shots every day.
I've got a book titled "The Biology of Belief" and in it a research biologist, Bruce Lipton, states that in fact there is the ability for us to control our bodies individual cells, in whatever part of the body they may be, such that our brains, our belief, can affect change at the cellular level. He provided proof that he found while doing research on human muscle cells for Stanford University in Palo Alto CA. I see that there is much truth in his words. All one has to apply is the theorized reason single celled animals became multicelled animals to help with the understanding. As Henry Ford said, 'If you believe you can or that you can't, your right!'alpha wrote:Greta wrote:Thing is, you suggested that I didn't question things. My impression was that you believed in nothingness. I'd mentioned the possibility of the "big bang" being the result of some kind of built up pressure in a preceding form of reality that we don't know about. You replied:alpha wrote:"underlying pressure can only happen to existing things. how can any pressure happen to nothing?this was my reply in an earlier post:Greta wrote:I took that as meaning you were disputing my claim because you believed there was nothing before the big bang. Please correct me if I've misunderstood your meaning there.alpha wrote:what kind of accusation is that?! what i'm saying is that there existed things before the big bang, in order for the big bang to come out of them. you just agreed with me on that. my point is that to avoid an infinite regress, you must admit to the existence of something(s) that's infinitely old, which was/is the initial cause of all of this. my beef is with that initial cause, since all subsequent causes are inevitable (as you also agree), so it would be pointless debating about them.Greta wrote:Another thought: human creative capacities? We can can transform our views, capacities and performance with creative imagination, as any sports psychologist will tell you. So what was not reality becomes reality. So "delusions" can be incorporated into reality.Alpha wrote:i refuse to be delusional -for the sake of happiness- on principle.ok, we're "creators" of reality, but we still have no actual choice in what we "create", which is a problem.Greta wrote:If a work of imagination becomes reality, is it a delusion? An architect's vision is simply a work of imagination until the plans are drawn. Out of that work of imagination comes a building. The famous basketball practice test is a more everyday example of the power of imagination:
We aren't just passive observers of reality but creators of it.Some website (to save me typing) wrote:A study using people shooting basketball free-throws was done to demonstrate the power of the imagination and visualization. Four groups were randomly selected from college students. At the beginning of the study, each group was to shoot a certain number of free throws and see how many were made. Next, each group was given one of the four following scenarios. The first group was the control group. These students were to do nothing different for the period of the study that related to basketball. Members of the second group were to practice shooting foul shots every day for one-half hour each day. The third group was told that each member was to not touch a basketball during the application period but was to simply sit and visualize making free-throws in his or her imagination for one half-hour each day. The fourth group was told to practice shooting for 15 minutes and also to visualize making free-throws for 15 minutes every day.
At the end of the testing period, each group was tested again to see if it had improved from the initial application. The results showed that the group that improved the most was the group that both visualized and practiced shooting the free throws. The group that made the second biggest improvement was the group that only practiced making free-throws in their imagination. This group improved more than the group that practiced shooting foul shots every day.
i've yet to hear of anyone actually changing their physical appearance. a dwarf believing they can be tall, would never work. someone who's in prison for life (without parole), will never be freed, by believing he will be.SpheresOfBalance wrote:I've got a book titled "The Biology of Belief" and in it a research biologist, Bruce Lipton, states that in fact there is the ability for us to control our bodies individual cells, in whatever part of the body they may be, such that our brains, our belief, can affect change at the cellular level. He provided proof that he found while doing research on human muscle cells for Stanford University in Palo Alto CA. I see that there is much truth in his words. All one has to apply is the theorized reason single celled animals became multicelled animals to help with the understanding. As Henry Ford said, 'If you believe you can or that you can't, your right!'
That you've taken it to the ridiculous extremes, that you have, seems to be par for your course. Your ability of building straw-men, is only out shined by your stubbornness. So as to the latter, I guess we actually see eye to eye, in a manor of speaking.alpha wrote:i've yet to hear of anyone actually changing their physical appearance. a dwarf believing they can be tall, would never work. someone who's in prison for life (without parole), will never be freed, by believing he will be.SpheresOfBalance wrote:I've got a book titled "The Biology of Belief" and in it a research biologist, Bruce Lipton, states that in fact there is the ability for us to control our bodies individual cells, in whatever part of the body they may be, such that our brains, our belief, can affect change at the cellular level. He provided proof that he found while doing research on human muscle cells for Stanford University in Palo Alto CA. I see that there is much truth in his words. All one has to apply is the theorized reason single celled animals became multicelled animals to help with the understanding. As Henry Ford said, 'If you believe you can or that you can't, your right!'
extremes are the true test of any claim. if a claim fails to address the most extreme scenarios, it's relatively worthless.SpheresOfBalance wrote:That you've taken it to the ridiculous extremes, that you have, seems to be par for your course. Your ability of building straw-men, is only out shined by your stubbornness. So as to the latter, I guess we actually see eye to eye, in a manor of speaking.
Lacewing wrote:Our logic is human logic, is it not? How accurate and applicable do you think human logic can be beyond the human reality (physical or otherwise)?
I don’t know why it’s disputable to suggest that a human’s “logic” is human logic. What else do you expect a human to have? I’m not saying that human’s can’t have expansive logic beyond the mundane... but it’s STILL shaped by human definitions, concepts, and limitations (even if we think it's spiritual or somehow beyond being human). And I didn’t say anything about “sitting and waiting” for anything.alpha wrote:that's disputable, to say the least. also, even if it's just human logic, it's still the best we've got (so we must use it). it's illogical to just sit there and wait for "the ultimate, infinite, non-human logic" to come along.
Why is it a problem? Is there only value if we are each a completely separate entity from all else, in total control of all that we want to be in control of? Is not the entire universe a system of systems within systems within systems? What is wrong with being part of (and comprised of) many systems that are functioning at greater levels than any of the parts may be individually aware of? And don’t systems have needs (which you have indicated is somehow inferior to non-existence)?alpha wrote: ok, we're "creators" of reality, but we still have no actual choice in what we "create", which is a problem.
Well, that’s an extreme statement/position. You and your assessments of what is superior and higher and lower and worthless... are your own human definitions and concepts that you've decided to work with. Just because things may seem extreme to you from where you currently stand (and perhaps even appeal to you because of that), there are many other vantage points from which thoughtful people (such as yourself) see greater balance and value. So, if there are many vantage points from which to view, your current one is somehow serving you for your own reasons, but it is surely not the pinnacle of all vantage points (not even for yourself). It seems logical to consider that from wherever you are currently standing, you are seeing a limited view within a system of many systems -- just as would be the case for any of us. The vast possibilities of expansion and discovery within that seem like a glorious thing to me.alpha wrote: extremes are the true test of any claim. if a claim fails to address the most extreme scenarios, it's relatively worthless.
Trying to be detached and break out of it would be like trying to prematurely escape a mother's womb. It seems scary and mad that ego can evolve to think it is superior to that which births and sustains it.