Philosophy Now Forum

.



If the past doesn't exist any more and the future does not exist yet then it is impossible for us to exit in some sot of undefined, continually changing now.


Then we don't exist.




.

Who said that?

Or we could use Cerverny's model where the past is the accretion of the crystallisation of a substance that is undergoing entropy and the future is that substance before the transformation with the now being the phase-space of the transformation.

Think of reality like a wheel: it touches the ground only in the present its circumference has lost both the past and the future. It says nothing about what is, only about how it could or can be.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:If the past doesn't exist any more and the future does not exist yet then it is impossible for us to exit in some sot of undefined, continually changing now.


Then we don't exist.

You should brush up your Descartes, Bill. We might have to change our concept of 'we', but assuming you are not a figment of my imagination, 'you' know as a minimum that the thoughts you are having now 'exist'. It maybe that your current experiences are all you are, ever were all will be, but it is self refuting to deny that the thoughts you are thinking now don't exist. You think, therefore you are. At least in that minimal sense; granted everything else is hypothetical, but a lot of what I think is consistent with there being a world out there that corresponds, more or less, to my experiences.

Was Descartes along the line of the problem of other minds...? Didn't see her noted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_other_minds

I understand as many would where Bill is coming from, i stated something similar in the eternity of time thread, but came to a similar 'conclusion' as Blaggard in that the events of matter have permitted conscious life at some point in its course, turning on that wheel that perhaps mean within the mean law of averages that 'i' didn't exist prior and never shall again....only when matters suit.

attofishpi wrote:Was Descartes along the line of the problem of other minds...? Didn't see her noted.

It's a bit of a theme at the moment. Descartes to a large degree set the agenda for 'modern' philosophy. He was trying to do for philosophy what Euclid had done for geometry, by discovering some logical premise as the foundation on which to build a secure body of knowledge. Most people agree that 'I think therefore I am' is a reasonable starting point (with a bit of tweaking), but not many are persuaded by the argument he developed. The other mind he was keen to prove was that of God, (some people think that was to appease the Vatican, but without god, Descartes' argument doesn't go anywhere ) who, being a good god wouldn't allow him to be deceived about any 'clear and distinct' ideas that he had. Plenty people think they have such ideas, but it simply doesn't follow that they are true.

attofishpi wrote:I understand as many would where Bill is coming from, i stated something similar in the eternity of time thread, but came to a similar 'conclusion' as Blaggard in that the events of matter have permitted conscious life at some point in its course, turning on that wheel that perhaps mean within the mean law of averages that 'i' didn't exist prior and never shall again....only when matters suit.

Well the thing with Bill's argument is that even if you accept the premises, the conclusion doesn't follow. You can have all sorts of definitions of 'we' any number of which could be untrue, but there is at least a minimal sense in which 'we' do exist. We could argue that we don't exist, but not without refuting the argument.

uwot wrote:The other mind he (Descartes) was keen to prove was that of God, (some people think that was to appease the Vatican, but without god, Descartes' argument doesn't go anywhere ) who, being a good god wouldn't allow him to be deceived about any 'clear and distinct' ideas that he had. Plenty people think they have such ideas, but it simply doesn't follow that they are true.

That's Spinoza and Descartes on my list of philosophers that appeared to be deluded by the general consensus of what 'God' is...'good', or at least what that entails. From what you state it appears Descartes believed since God is 'good', questions cannot be left unanswerable.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



If the past doesn't exist any more and the future does not exist yet then it is impossible for us to exit in some sot of undefined, continually changing now.


Then we don't exist.


.

A shocking a banal example of the failure of binary thinking.

Duh

.



binary thinking:
If you use "binary thinking," you are a person who sees no gray, no fuzziness between your categories. Everything is black or white.



Banal describes something that is common in a boring way, to the point of being predictable.





...................................



...mind explaining yourself?


.

attofishpi wrote:That's Spinoza and Descartes on my list of philosophers that appeared to be deluded by the general consensus of what 'God' is...'good', or at least what that entails.

Well there are some, unconvinced that god exists, who don't bother to attribute any qualities at all. Descartes did try to prove that god exists with his version of an ontological argument, basically: Imagine the most perfect being you can. It would be even more perfect if it existed' and here's the clincher: because being is a perfection. That despite the fact that everything we have good cause to believe exists, us, stuff, the universe quite clearly isn't perfect; even if as Leibniz asserted, it is the best of all possible worlds.

attofishpi wrote:From what you state it appears Descartes believed since God is 'good', questions cannot be left unanswerable.

Not really; just that a good god would ensure that Descartes didn't have any 'clear and distinct' ideas that were not true.

attofishpi wrote:

uwot wrote:The other mind he (Descartes) was keen to prove was that of God, (some people think that was to appease the Vatican, but without god, Descartes' argument doesn't go anywhere ) who, being a good god wouldn't allow him to be deceived about any 'clear and distinct' ideas that he had. Plenty people think they have such ideas, but it simply doesn't follow that they are true.

That's Spinoza and Descartes on my list of philosophers that appeared to be deluded by the general consensus of what 'God' is...'good', or at least what that entails. From what you state it appears Descartes believed since God is 'good', questions cannot be left unanswerable.

Don't be keen to cross Spinoza off your list. He was a pantheist.

.






........................................





Wiki: Pantheism - Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god. Some Asian religions are considered to be pantheistically inclined.

Pantheism was popularised in the West as both a theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza,:p.7 whose book Ethics was an answer to Descartes' famous dualist theory that the body and spirit are separate. Spinoza held the monist view that the two are the same, and monism is a fundamental part of his philosophy. He was described as a "God-intoxicated man," and used the word God to describe the unity of all substance. Although the term pantheism was not coined until after his death, Spinoza is regarded as its most celebrated advocate.







.......................................................................................





...I agree with Pantheism but in a different, more real, complete & modern way.

.

I think we are starting to discover that Spinoza was probably a bit more modern then we first thought.

P.S. Don't tell Hex that.

Sadly he could do with the update, his thinking is somewhat hidebound about philosophy. That which does not fulfill hex makes it all take longer.

I think and hope one day he will learn to stop hating original thought and start loving how unpredictable it all is. That is I think what philosophy is about, although I may be wrong, at least I can be though, a matter of fortitude in itself.

Ginkgo wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

uwot wrote:The other mind he (Descartes) was keen to prove was that of God, (some people think that was to appease the Vatican, but without god, Descartes' argument doesn't go anywhere ) who, being a good god wouldn't allow him to be deceived about any 'clear and distinct' ideas that he had. Plenty people think they have such ideas, but it simply doesn't follow that they are true.

That's Spinoza and Descartes on my list of philosophers that appeared to be deluded by the general consensus of what 'God' is...'good', or at least what that entails. From what you state it appears Descartes believed since God is 'good', questions cannot be left unanswerable.

Don't be keen to cross Spinoza off your list. He was a pantheist.

Yes i know, i've read more Spinoza that i have of any other philosopher, which isn't much to be honest. Originally i considered myself a pantheist but on realising how personable God\'God' actually is, panentheism is the glove that so far fits best.