Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 86

Thread: Philosophy of existence

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Philosophy of existence

    Okay, lets do a mind experiment. Imagine what would happen if every human being died, would the world cease to exist? Would the laws of physics change? Of course not. What I’m getting at here is that reality is based on existence regardless of whether or not consciousness exists. So in that case, consciousness is a part of reality, not the other way around.

    Any other philosophy is rooted in dishonesty, laziness, and/or bad premise.

  2. #2
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I pretty much just subscribe to soft determinsm. I used to be a hard determinest, but being introduced to quantum physics gave me a whole new perspective of the situation. With that being stated, I still believe that "free-will" is very, very limited, and the affect of free-will is almost nill, as there needs to be an extremely large amount of variables fufilled in order for quantum mechanics to influence it in any significant manner.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedro-The-Lion
    Why wouldn't the universe disappear if humans were destroyed? There really is no way of proving that reality is not an extension of the conscious mind. Furthermore, the consciousness that "creates" reality need not be human which is akin to what I believe. Anyway, ...
    Just appear to be consciously unobserved, as far as well know. Kinda like the toddler thing where they cover their eyes and say YOU CAN'T SEE ME!!!

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    wait, if the univserse were consciously unobserved, would it exist? if a tree fell in a forest, would you hear it?

    (my layer of sarcasm here just means i hate this chicken or egg type of topic)

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Has anybody in here ever heard of Julian Jaynes’ theory of consciousness? It talks about an evolving consciousness around 1000 BCE from the bicameral mind to the proto-conscious mind. Yes, I’m sure some people in here are thinking that this is probably some kind of new age crap, but it is quit interesting. Here are two good links, http://www.buildfreedom.com/ and http://www.neo-tech.com/finalevo/evo-001.html

    The first link right now does not work.

    Any way, consciousness was invented by man as a means to deal with reality. Reality exists, and then a conscious being identifies it through its senses, processes the information, and then takes the necessary action. Reality is objective; therefore it is one, regardless of how other people perceive it, although there are different ways to perceive it.

    I’m not trying to convince any body to my views; but I do want to know how other logical minded people think about it. I am an ENTp that is in the process of finding out how to challenge the status-quo.

    By the way, the two links above are, to say the least, controversial!

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would post another reply saying how self repeating consciousness creating reality theories are circular reasoning just like cause and effect, but that would just be repeating myself.

  7. #7
    Creepy-

    Default

    First of all, consciousness was not invented by man, it was devolopped by earlier organisms that existed way before man and it proved very helpful in helping them to satisfy their organic functions. But I know what you meant.

    The thing is, that, yes, the fact that we perceive an external reality that exists ouside of us proves such a reality exists, but not necessarily in the way we perceive it. We have a priori perceptory functions that exist in our mind, (sensory traits like color etc, plus spactime which is the framework for our sensory perception). Then after weve taken in information from our senses, we need to make sense of that information, to make noise into music, so to speak. We have our cognitive functions that serve to organize and understand the information provided by our senses. Without our cognitive faculties the information provided by our senses would just be silent noise, it wouldnt make sense.

    The thing is, there is no proof that spacetime and sensory qualities exist outside our perception, we may be perceiving outside reality in a way we need to survive. Also, there is no proof that our cognitive faculties interpret the world exactly as it is, we may just be interpreting it in a way thats practical and useful for us, and again, that may very well be enough for our survival.

  8. #8
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That was me above that posted. Im new here, im just saying that so youll know that it was me above, so that theres no confusion if I respond to someome's response to my post.

  9. #9
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Of course, finding out whether they do or not is irrelevant, as they are our only means of reasoning and ascertaining truth.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymous
    First of all, consciousness was not invented by man, it was devolopped by earlier organisms that existed way before man and it proved very helpful in helping them to satisfy their organic functions. But I know what you meant.

    It is shown throughout history that the “norm” is not always a good base of measurement for new ideas.

    I am not saying that you are wrong, I’m just putting something out there for people to think about.

  11. #11
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am not anonymous :roll:

    I agree that the norm is not a good way of evaluating new ideas, or evaluating anything for that matter, simply because the norm could be wrong and it being a norm doesnt make it right. But what are you saying exactly, explain because I dont understand what you mean when you say that im evaluating a new idea by the norm. What is this new idea? and how does it differ from the norm and why?

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry

    I meant that as a generalization. To some degree, it seems like to me that everyone has a tendency to measure reality through the so-called “norm.” I did not mean it to come across as if I was accusing you of evaluating a new idea by the norm.

    Most people often criticize the information that I tend to pick up so I use analogies and clever sayings to get people to consider them before they reject them. I’m not saying that I suspected that you already rejected it, but it is almost a habit on my part to put phrases out like that to provoke creative thought for anyone who is willing to pay attention to what I communicate. It is not the specific idea, but it is the objective of this topic to provoke reaction to a different set of ideas.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I guess a better question would be how could someone separate good information from bad information? Take this analogy: It’s like the 1999 movie The Matrix, what is real, the matrix (a metaphor of current society) or the real world where no one is being productively drained by “authorities.” The so-called external authorities are like the computerized parasites (politicians, for example).

    Dr. Julian Jaynes theorized that people were not conscious until around 1000 BCE in Greece, 400 BCE in India, and 500 BCE in China. I do not mean consciousness as in awake versus being asleep, but as in a subjective awareness of time, self, and possibility. But when ancient societies became too complex for people who where not self aware, those societies broke down. In theory, the only way human beings could survive was to reorganize the mind to take objective facts and subjectively interpreting them. But there is a flaw in this type of mind. If people can foresee a possibility that may not be there, they can also imagine a set of ideas that are not true, in another words, dishonesty. In short, it is dishonesty that allows people to rationalize laziness, default to responsibility, and so on, and is the root cause in the flaw of our current society. When someone defaults to self-command, that person is looking for an authority other than that person’s own. This external authority can be a politician, theologian, an idol, a book, a horoscope, or whatever. At that point, the individual who gave his or her own person to someone else can be manipulated to accept most of what their “authority” tells them. Meanwhile, this authority does not have to actually work for a living, or at least take praise that person did not earn.

    Most of the time, this little fact happens below people’s awareness because it seems normal to them.

  14. #14
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    Of course, finding out whether they do or not is irrelevant, as they are our only means of reasoning and ascertaining truth.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    watch the movie i heart huckabees, its a very very good movie, relevent to this discussion.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0356721/

  16. #16
    Creepy-

    Default

    Ok thanks explaining what you meant. :wink:


    As far as good and bad information is concerned, its good question, but I dont have set answer.

    I think that in all societies preceeding ours, and including ours, people have given in to some form of authority outside of themselves. There were exceptional individuals who didnt, and there many who still dont, but in general, some form of authority has presided over society. Thats true in primitive as well as civilized societies.

    Dont forget that the ancient world was alot more dangerous, and our ancestors had to deal with suffering and fear that was much greater than what we experience today. Authorities were originally looked up to because they were fearless and bold and knew how to lead others, who were scared and in danger in a world of chaos. So I think external authority was a survival technique used when the world was still unkown, wild,and man was still in everyday danger, unlike in our world which is alot safer in general. I dont like looking to external authority, but its easy for me to say, considering I live in a first world country and I have no idea what its like to live in a truly perilous environmemt.

    I could be wrong though, but its good to ask yourself why people look up to authority.

  17. #17
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I would say that consciousness extends PAST humanity, as even chimps, whose brain is only 1/3 the size of our own, possess by age 5 a rudimentary level of consciousness, thus, I would assert most forcefully that we have been conscious our entire existent as an isolated species. And a most exemplary example of consciousness existing prior to 12,000 B.C. would be the surge of art that sprouted around 35,000 years ago. It is in my personal opinion that in order to create art, one must be capable of reflecting upon one's self and then illustrating the results of this reflection through an externalization of some form, be it literary or visual.

    However, we can clearly see that throughout history consciousness has EVOLVED. At around 35,000 years ago, there was a clear distinction between the train of thought between hominids which preceeded those existing during that period, and the current ones. We also have the outbreak of agriculture, which then allowed for both a surplus of needed nutrients and reflection, which was allowed due to the fact that society had , after the agricultural revolution, become stable and thus allowed for more activities of leisure, such as conceputualization. See "Maslow's Hierarchy" for support of my second claim.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sorry, never mind……

    I know the difference between being “right” and producing results. I know that it is unlikely that anybody on this forum will be convinced to an objective paradigm. So, if you are interested, let me know through private messaging.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic
    I would say that consciousness extends PAST humanity, as even chimps, whose brain is only 1/3 the size of our own, possess by age 5 a rudimentary level of consciousness, thus, I would assert most forcefully that we have been conscious our entire existent as an isolated species. And a most exemplary example of consciousness existing prior to 12,000 B.C. would be the surge of art that sprouted around 35,000 years ago. It is in my personal opinion that in order to create art, one must be capable of reflecting upon one's self and then illustrating the results of this reflection through an externalization of some form, be it literary or visual.

    However, we can clearly see that throughout history consciousness has EVOLVED. At around 35,000 years ago, there was a clear distinction between the train of thought between hominids which preceeded those existing during that period, and the current ones. We also have the outbreak of agriculture, which then allowed for both a surplus of needed nutrients and reflection, which was allowed due to the fact that society had , after the agricultural revolution, become stable and thus allowed for more activities of leisure, such as conceputualization. See "Maslow's Hierarchy" for support of my second claim.
    Interesting . . . Ken Wilbur has theorized on this same thing: the evolution of consciousness. I forget the name of his book, but it looks at levels of consciousness and how at different points in human history the majority of humans reach a certain level and then there are a minority of more highly evolved. For example, during the stoneage, the shamanistic level of consciousness was achieved by a minority of humans while the majority rested at an earlier stage.
    Entp
    ILE

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If you think that is interesting, check out Julian Jaynes' theory.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What is Julian Jaynes' theory
    Entp
    ILE

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    For anyone.......

    Why do people adhere to subjective philosophy? I'm I missing something?

    I do not mean for the above message to come across as rude if it is.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze
    What is Julian Jaynes' theory

    Alright, you really have to stick with me on this one.

    If you are religious, you will not like it. It also does not sound right because nothing sounds anything like it.

    So do you want to take the blue pill
    Or….
    The Red pill: http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl11.shtml

    http://www.imprint.co.uk/moody.html

    http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_so...onscious3.html

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Read it carefully and objectively.

    It is an interesting theory, most people will not accept it because it is not a part of the mainstream, but it is becoming so.

    I apply the theory to socionics in some ways

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbean
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze
    What is Julian Jaynes' theory

    Alright, you really have to stick with me on this one.

    If you are religious, you will not like it. It also does not sound right because nothing sounds anything like it.

    So do you want to take the blue pill
    Or….
    The Red pill: http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl11.shtml

    http://www.imprint.co.uk/moody.html

    http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_so...onscious3.html

    That's some dense shit, Jim.

    I scanned it, but at this hour on a Friday night my mind just won't get around all those drop down menus in every sentence. Any chance you'd boil it down for us??
    Entp
    ILE

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just give me a little more time, almost ready.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
    --Theodore Roosevelt

    "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
    -- Mark Twain

    "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
    -- Confucius

  27. #27
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    May I ask a simple question? What exactly is the purpose of trying to understand the "philosophy of existence"? Why do you constantly try to build a theory of consciousness? Why are we speculating upon something so unknown and useless to practical reality anyway? It is just for the thrill of understanding? Is it metaphorical in any way? Is there possibly some useful information to be extrapolated from this? Does it really matter whether I "believe" in free will or determinism? Does it matter how many levels of consciousness exist?

    This is an honest question. I just want to know exactly how the Alpha quadra works. Some of you wonder in awe of what Ni is like; I wonder in awe of what Ti is like.

    And just a side note: I noticed that many INTjs seem to like to deal with the history behind things, the origin of what exists now. This is a common theme in C. G. Jung's works.


    Your INTp friend,

    Cone
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Wilmington NC USA
    Posts
    666
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    May I ask a simple question? What exactly is the purpose of trying to understand the "philosophy of existence"? Why do you constantly try to build a theory of consciousness? Why are we speculating upon something so unknown and useless to practical reality anyway? It is just for the thrill of understanding? Is it metaphorical in any way? Is there possibly some useful information to be extrapolated from this? Does it really matter whether I "believe" in free will or determinism? Does it matter how many levels of consciousness exist?

    This is an honest question. I just want to know exactly how the Alpha quadra works. Some of you wonder in awe of what Ni is like; I wonder in awe of what Ti is like.

    And just a side note: I noticed that many INTjs seem to like to deal with the history behind things, the origin of what exists now. This is a common theme in C. G. Jung's works.


    Your INTp friend,

    Cone
    Indeed :uts pipe to corner of mouth like an english gentleman::
    Personally I find debates on circular topics (not just plain irrational topics like literal creationism(and I don't mean irrational in the socionics sense)(I mean it in the english sense)pretty dumband. boring, freewill. verses determinism debates are so goddamn boring. It's the same thing, two different things, one exists and the other is an illusion, it amazes me how people keep talking and say nothing at all. They just repeat themselves in new ways, and think they have invented something new. It's incredible to watch this circular reasoning going on, but it's also boring. It never ceases to amaze me how little someone can say but how much their mouth can move.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Evolution of consciousness stuff is cool . . . you can see where you are. And where were all going on this crazy blue-green mixed up planet.



    Seriously though, it's big picture, evolutionary kind of stuff. Applications to be contemplated once it's well understood.

    "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

    Author unknown.
    Entp
    ILE

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    May I ask a simple question? What exactly is the purpose of trying to understand the "philosophy of existence"? Why do you constantly try to build a theory of consciousness? Why are we speculating upon something so unknown and useless to practical reality anyway? It is just for the thrill of understanding? Is it metaphorical in any way? Is there possibly some useful information to be extrapolated from this? Does it really matter whether I "believe" in free will or determinism? Does it matter how many levels of consciousness exist?

    This is an honest question. I just want to know exactly how the Alpha quadra works. Some of you wonder in awe of what Ni is like; I wonder in awe of what Ti is like.

    And just a side note: I noticed that many INTjs seem to like to deal with the history behind things, the origin of what exists now. This is a common theme in C. G. Jung's works.


    Your INTp friend,

    Cone

    I can only speak for myself. I search for new ideas because I have the expectation of applying something different and benefiting accordingly.

    I am sharing the “philosophy of existence” with those in this forum because such information has benefited me in understanding everything in reality. I thought that by gearing everyone up for this type of thought, we would have more productive discussions.

    “Borderless Empire” is an article that has come out of objective philosophy, the one that sounded like a joke to probably most people. That is why I will not try to convince anyone of this again unless they ask me.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
    --Theodore Roosevelt

    "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
    -- Mark Twain

    "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
    -- Confucius

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbean
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze
    What is Julian Jaynes' theory

    Alright, you really have to stick with me on this one.

    If you are religious, you will not like it. It also does not sound right because nothing sounds anything like it.

    So do you want to take the blue pill
    Or….
    The Red pill: http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl11.shtml

    http://www.imprint.co.uk/moody.html

    http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_so...onscious3.html

    That's some dense shit, Jim.

    I scanned it, but at this hour on a Friday night my mind just won't get around all those drop down menus in every sentence. Any chance you'd boil it down for us??

    1.) If you are familiar with Plato’s philosophy, then think the opposite of what he prescribed.

    2.) Consciousness is a tool for adhering to reality.

    3.) Reality exists, and can be best understood by abstraction. I will give you a site relating to this if you want me to.

    4.) Consciousness evolved (according to Jaynes) relatively recently. Human beings went from relying on hallucinations, to being “right.” It is speculated that people will eventually evolve even further.

    By the way, consciousness here is not defined as awake versus asleep, alert versus tired. It is defined as a subjective awareness of time, the self, the ability to create what is not visible, etc. etc.

    I might explain more later on.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
    --Theodore Roosevelt

    "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
    -- Mark Twain

    "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
    -- Confucius

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbean
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbean
    Quote Originally Posted by Blaze
    What is Julian Jaynes' theory

    Alright, you really have to stick with me on this one.

    If you are religious, you will not like it. It also does not sound right because nothing sounds anything like it.

    So do you want to take the blue pill
    Or….
    The Red pill: http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl11.shtml

    http://www.imprint.co.uk/moody.html



    http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_so...onscious3.html

    That's some dense shit, Jim.

    I scanned it, but at this hour on a Friday night my mind just won't get around all those drop down menus in every sentence. Any chance you'd boil it down for us??

    1.) If you are familiar with Plato’s philosophy, then think the opposite of what he prescribed.

    2.) Consciousness is a tool for adhering to reality.

    3.) Reality exists, and can be best understood by abstraction. I will give you a site relating to this if you want me to.

    4.) Consciousness evolved (according to Jaynes) relatively recently. Human beings went from relying on hallucinations, to being “right.” It is speculated that people will eventually evolve even further.

    By the way, consciousness here is not defined as awake versus asleep, alert versus tired. It is defined as a subjective awareness of time, the self, the ability to create what is not visible, etc. etc.

    I might explain more later on.
    The only part I didn't agree with was that people were hallucinating relatively recently. I don't think that is likely; after all, there's been significant development over time.

    What I think might be going on, however, is that there were even more rogueish individuals than there are now, who did not lives by the evolutionarily driven political laws of enhancing your survival and your offspring's survival by getting along with everybody and being popular. That is to say, I hypothesize that there used to be a greater proportion of antisocial, narcissistic rogues running around.

    The evolutionary psychology stuff is very cool. I'll try to find a link for anyone who is interested.
    Entp
    ILE

  33. #33
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cone
    May I ask a simple question? What exactly is the purpose of trying to understand the "philosophy of existence"? Why do you constantly try to build a theory of consciousness? Why are we speculating upon something so unknown and useless to practical reality anyway? It is just for the thrill of understanding? Is it metaphorical in any way? Is there possibly some useful information to be extrapolated from this? Does it really matter whether I "believe" in free will or determinism? Does it matter how many levels of consciousness exist?
    Well its a good question concerning the practical application of these ideas, but I have to ask why every single thing has to have a practical application. Not everything has to have a practical application, thats when things get their beauty is when they are useless. Its not because fireworks for ligthing that they are beautiful.

    We live in a very materialistic society which only values external output for a "productive"purpose(that is productivity in the material world), and not any form of spiritual or deep contemplation, so I can understand that what I just said might be hard to digest for a modern man, but I think that there is more to the universe,if you want there to be, than just that which we can utilize for our materialistic ends.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Meaning of Life Revealed

    Eat, Survive, Reproduce



    The problem of life meaning plagues all self-reflective beings. And, of course, religious revelation which communicates God’s ultimate personal purpose for us is, no matter how difficult, no matter how lengthy, deliciously welcome. How much more comforting is the religious solution to the problem of meaning than the more rational but bleak message sent us by nature, a message that reminds us of our miniscule place in the cosmos and in the great chain of being? I once saw a memorable and jarring cartoon containing several panels, each depicting some species, for example, an earthworm, a fish, a bird, a snake, a cow. In each panel one of these creatures was depicted as chanting the same refrain: “Eat, survive, reproduce. Eat, survive, reproduce. The last panel depicted a man in Rodin’s “thinker” posture and chanting to himself, “What's it all about? What’s it all about? All the other life forms seem to get the picture but we humans just cannot get our minds around it and instead demand and then legislate the existence of some higher purpose or mission.

    Most clinical and theoretical explorations into sturdy and satisfying life-purpose projects point to such goals as hedonism, altruism, dedication to a cause, generativity, creativity, self actualization. It seems evident to me that life-purpose projects take on a deeper, more powerful significance if they are self-transcendent – that is, directed to something or someone outside themselves – the love of a cause, the creative process, the love of others or a divine essence.

    http://www.yalom.com/pfister.html

    If you ask me, (well, I know no one did :wink most of this speculation is just much ado about nothing. We are all just accidents of evolution and there is no objective philosophy of existence beyond what you choose to make of your life, which again can be well worth pondering...

    Now there seems to be a few misconceptions I would like to correct:
    -This theory by Dr Julian Jaynes is a whole lot of nonsense. Humans have been biologically essentially the same for tens of thousands of years, 35000 years that MysticSonic quoted is as good guess as any other. There has been no leap of consciousness, only cultural evolution and a better preservation of the products of more advanced cultures.

    -It is quite likely that the propensity to religious beliefs, including all kinds of mysticism and new age nonsense, is a product of evolution and has been, and continues to be, subject to selection.

    Genetic and environmental influences on religiousness: findings for retrospective and current religiousness ratings.

    Koenig LB, McGue M, Krueger RF, Bouchard TJ Jr.

    Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. koen00999@umn.edu

    Estimates of the degree of genetic and environmental influences on religiousness have varied widely. This variation may, in part, be due to age differences in the samples under study. To investigate the heritability of religiousness and possible age changes in this estimate, both current and retrospective religiousness were assessed by self-report in a sample of adult male twins (169 MZ pairs and 104 DZ pairs, mean age of 33 years). Retrospective reports of religiousness showed little correlation difference between MZ (r=.69) and DZ (r=.59) twins. Reports of current religiousness, however, did show larger MZ (r=.62) than DZ (r=.42) similarity. Biometric analysis of the two religiousness ratings revealed that genetic factors were significantly weaker (12% vs. 44%) and shared environmental factors were significantly stronger (56% vs. 18%) in adolescence compared to adulthood. Analysis of internal and external religiousness subscales of the total score revealed similar results. These findings support the hypothesis that the heritability of religiousness increases from adolescence to adulthood.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15745438


    -Probably roughly since the invention of agriculture intelligence and other mental faculties have not given any selective advantage. Most of agricultural work has been rather tedious and has not required above average intelligence. The decline of civilizations has usually been caused by military defeat or collapse of the agricultural base, due to climate fluctuations, deforestation, soil depletion, soil and groundwater salination etc.

    -Mankind is neither evolving into anything smarter, rather to the contrary, but the process is slow and will be soon reversed once genetic engineering becomes feasible. This will most likely happen already during our lifetime. People of tomorrow will be smarter, healthier and more beautiful than we are. For the most part this is nothing to worry about.

    -Eventually mankind as we know it will cease to exist. Humans will be replaced by superintelligent, practically indestructible cyborgs. This is a much slower process, but I would estimate it will happen within a few centuries. Generally the problem in predicting future is that people will tend to overestimate short term changes and underestimate the rate of gradual progress in the long term. Major change is inevitable, but the speed is hard to pin down.

    -Later the whole galaxy and maybe even universe will be colonized by new forms of intelligent life-like creatures. The search for extraterrestrial life will intensify. Something will be found, but the planet Tellus may well be the ancestral home to the only intelligent form of life we will ever encounter. Take care of your unique selves

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,249
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Jaynes was talking about the reorganizing of the mind, not the brain. A reorganizing of the mind happens often, but it is theorized that there was one major shift in the mind that happened around 1,000 BCE in the Mediterranean, and around 500 BCE in Asia.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
    --Theodore Roosevelt

    "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
    -- Mark Twain

    "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
    -- Confucius

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    992
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see the mind as strictly a product of the brain and therefore do not understand how the mind could be significantly reorganized without any changes in the brain. Anyway I think all historical records and archeological evidence does not support the view that there was some major reorganization of the mind, only progress of history and gradual cultural evolution. Maybe if you could be more specific...

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    M-H λ
    Posts
    2,609
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: Meaning of Life Revealed

    Quote Originally Posted by CuriousSoul
    The problem of life meaning plagues all self-reflective beings.
    The premise of that arguement precludes meaning...

  38. #38
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerio
    Well its a good question concerning the practical application of these ideas, but I have to ask why every single thing has to have a practical application. Not everything has to have a practical application, thats when things get their beauty is when they are useless. Its not because fireworks for ligthing that they are beautiful.

    We live in a very materialistic society which only values external output for a "productive"purpose(that is productivity in the material world), and not any form of spiritual or deep contemplation, so I can understand that what I just said might be hard to digest for a modern man, but I think that there is more to the universe,if you want there to be, than just that which we can utilize for our materialistic ends.
    What I mean by practicality is just what you said isn't practicality. In my eyes, practical use is any use that can be used to help others with any aspect of their lives. I will admit, I do love the topic of philosophy, but only in a spiritual way, i.e. that which only applies to me. What you people discuss is useless in my eyes, because all you are doing is trying to solve hypothetical questions that seemingly point towards the general nature of existence itself. But one can never understand why things exist if one merely exists. If you want to understand the system, you must be higher than it, more complex than it, and work faster than it. If you are the system, you're never going to understand it.


    Your INTp friend,

    Cone
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

  39. #39
    Hiding Typhon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Valhalla
    TIM
    Ni-ENFj
    Posts
    2,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You know what I think, Cone? I think for a long time, people beleive in absolute truths. Everyone beleived the church, and noone had any reason to question. Then came the renaissance, and then the enlightenment, and then the romantic period, and more and more contradictory opinions began being thrown aroung, to the extent that people were confused, they didnt know what to beleive, and every "truth" concerning the outside world was opposed to another "truth", to the extent that alot of people could not help but beleive everything was relative. But knowing all was relative in their minds, in their hearts they needed to fill that void with the reassurance of absolute truth, that void that was once actually filled. So they began not to theorize about God, nature, or anything outside man, but everything that was man, his existence itself. If everything was subjective, at least we could think about the subject himeself, and maybe that would bring some reassurance.

  40. #40
    Cone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    2,717
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm sorry if I upset you, Cheerio, but it's just that I dislike people telling me about the philosophy of existence from their viewpoint. I do have reassurance, but unlike you guys, it's a belief, not a truth. But it this statement that leads me to discuss the true reason of why I don't like you guys talking about this stuff (and why I've tried to stay away from this topic.)

    The more I age, the more I realize that I have this deep, dark fear of something that you guys take for granted. And do you know what that is? Logic. Pure impersonal logic. As I grow up, I am realizing more and more of how much I dislike any science, whether it be chemistry, biology, neuroscience, quantum physics, computers, and yes, even Socionics. It seems to me that the more I work to figure out Socionics, the more I subconsciously work against it. The more we try to understand it, the more impersonal it becomes. It becomes just another tool to understand something special and sacred in terms of pure, cold logic. With the direction that the sciences are going, I just feel that something bad is going to happen. I don't know what it is, but I know it's there.

    This may be extremist and you may hate me for this, but I'll say it anyway: I hope Socionics is never proven and never introduced into America. And for some reason, I think all of this is the subconscious reason of why so many INTps hate Socionics.


    Your INTp friend,

    Cone
    Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •