oohhh my head hurts.
-------------
eargasm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0ofh...eature=related
-------------
eargasm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0ofh...eature=related
Last edited by Metriakon; Sep 24, 2012 at 07:22 PM.
Originally Posted by Uric
Philosophy is a great subject.
I personally don't really mull over them a lot, but I really respect some when they relate to what I feel is real.
<3
Originally Posted by Uric
I believe that a true norm does not exist because, if you really look in-depth into individuals; none are even slightly alike. I accept that everybody is different. I think that everybody should also accept that themselves. Not follow this media bullshit idea of the "perfect person". Beliefs are what you feel are what makes you, you. What you think exists in the world, the universe. Anything can be built upon anything within this vast universe. The belief of god arose from nothingness. Now look at it. That's how things start. The more effort and thought people put into things, the more can be found out.
The same applies to sciences. I am completely agnostic in my views. "Open minded" you might say.
My one true-to-self rule is thus: Each to their own.
It's simple, but it is so so so true.
I was about to jump on that, but you applied it to science too. That's dedication to a view.
For the first part, yeah toss out media, that's total bs.
What I was meaning to ask was "How do we (will define later) have knowledge? and/or, how do we know we have knowledge?"
Simple example: "I know this table is here."
"How?"
"Well... I hit it with my hand" *slam*
So, going off that, what we can measure in some form or another with our sensory experience would be considered a way to gain knowledge. Through the testing of these sensory experiences, we can say that it is more and more probable that, for example, the table is there.
However, we also know that our senses can be tricked. We are subject to illusions. This takes credibility away from sensory experience, and from what I outlined above. There are ways around it, but it becomes much more complicated.
Epistemology (Theories/Study of knowledge) is really interesting when you go right into it.
Originally Posted by Uric
Define "we".
A collective. I don't think there is a "self" to speak of, so "we" would simply refer to the living things similar to you. (Humans)
Originally Posted by Uric
The idea of a government seems to keep people in check.
While a lot of governments make a lot of bad calls, it's still the one thing stopping us from slipping into something of a medieval time.
Some countries are run better than others, but in reality and life. Everything has it's faults and benefits. We have to make do with what we have at the time.
If anything, the world can only get better. (Assuming a nuclear winter does not erupt).
Ah, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're placing morality as an external source? (i.e. gov't, religion, etc)
That's a tricky stance to take in my opinion. If we give the government or religious offices the liberty to decide what is right and wrong, placing no other restrictions on them, then they can very easily exploit that position and screw over the "worker bees".
Originally Posted by Uric
Rights are not to be given unless somebody does something that is immoral.
What is immorality? Who knows. This it what makes such things so hard to make calls and judgements off of.
The general idea of moral is something that is not exploiting. I suppose.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Would you mind explaining the "The general idea of moral is something that is not exploiting. I suppose." thing?
Originally Posted by Uric
Without society we would be nothing but the scavengers that we evolved into.
No communication. Little brain capacity. Barely any thought process. We'd be scavenging machines.
Society is what causes us as a species to grow far beyond what our potential was originally meant to be.
While I disagree with the first part (We were capable of very complex thought processes, up to and including what we're capable of now at that time, society didn't give us this ability.), I'm with you on the second.
It does depend on what we assign value to though. If we follow this, then humans (or animals with a society) are the things that should be given rights. However, this will get people from PETA on our backs, so how do we deal with that? =P
Originally Posted by Uric
I like thinking deep.
(lol penetration)
lulz
Originally Posted by Uric
<3
---
Please note, these are opinions of my own.
I'm not saying this is what it is or should be.
I know you, Aikido, will understand this as opinions and personal takes on things is what philosophy is all about. But for others reading this. I mean no offense.
Uric. Marry me. Now.
I never knew this side of you!
-------------
Also, for everyone reading, I'm not quite as... polite as this gentleman here. If you are offended, well, too bad ;) If you don't like it, chip in and point out how any of it is wrong.
<3
milf
I was about to jump on that, but you applied it to science too. That's dedication to a view.
For the first part, yeah toss out media, that's total bs.
Science requires an open mind,
What I was meaning to ask was "How do we (will define later) have knowledge? and/or, how do we know we have knowledge?"
Simple example: "I know this table is here."
"How?"
"Well... I hit it with my hand" *slam*
So, going off that, what we can measure in some form or another with our sensory experience would be considered a way to gain knowledge. Through the testing of these sensory experiences, we can say that it is more and more probable that, for example, the table is there.
Let me answer your question with a question.
Your example shows matter as the determining factor of an existence, correct?
In that case, how do we knew things such as emotions are real? There is no real way to prove it to anyone other than our brain seems to react to stimuli of different sorts to make our body react.
The reaction is the physical part, but how does the emotion (being mental we assume) get proven?
However, we also know that our senses can be tricked. We are subject to illusions. This takes credibility away from sensory experience, and from what I outlined above. There are ways around it, but it becomes much more complicated.
Epistemology (Theories/Study of knowledge) is really interesting when you go right into it.
I have to study the brain as part of my course.
The thing that I am most amazed by is how vast it's ability is.
In a split second it can determine a from be and react with c. But the amazing thing is, it can do this while dealing with multiple other things at the same time.
Please, pinch me if I'm moving too far away from theory and more into the physical side of things.
The brain in a sub-conscious way can keep processes such as breathing, cellular diffusion, protein destruction, protein production, heart beating, blood circulation, etc etc etc. The list goes on.
When you bring conscious processes such as walking and talking and eating into it, it's really quite amazing how it can cope with it without a bother.
Illusions are when the brain illudes itself. Nothing more, nothing less. It gets so warped up in itself that it starts to tell you that something is there. If you over-think something that the brain is doing that should not be, you will get nowhere and end up dazed or confused. This is fact as the brain cannot determine why, but only what when it comes to such a situation.
It's ability is limitless because of this.
Take dreaming for example.
You can drift off into an external reality. But really, you're just inside your own head. You can feel, you can see, you can hear, you can sense. But it is all inside your head. Relate this back to the real world, the brain is the key to ALL of these things, key to our existence. Why what is what. Etcetcetc.
(I love the brain, sorry)
A collective. I don't think there is a "self" to speak of, so "we" would simply refer to the living things similar to you. (Humans)
As in we, the Homo Sapiens Sapiens?
Ah, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're placing morality as an external source? (i.e. gov't, religion, etc)
That's a tricky stance to take in my opinion. If we give the government or religious offices the liberty to decide what is right and wrong, placing no other restrictions on them, then they can very easily exploit that position and screw over the "worker bees".
There is a such thing as an uprising, a turnover, a riot (i suppose) which can keep these kinds of things in check.
Because of the advanced society we live in, without "leaders" the world as we know it would be a complete shambles. Yes, it's pretty nasty and rough now. But it's about a million times better than what it would be without guidance.
Imagine each man being able to run everything, being allowed to do anything.
There would be blood drawn everywhere. Depression, disease, the list goes on.
Having a generic leadership is what keeps the society from imploding itself. The mayans and aztecs had it right, until their population outgrew their leadership's capability, look at what happened to them? Their races disappeared off the face of the earth.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. Would you mind explaining the "The general idea of moral is something that is not exploiting. I suppose." thing?
Morality:
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Generic principles regard not exploiting something or someone. Not using them for their own advantage whilst disadvantaging the person or object that advantaged them.
While I disagree with the first part (We were capable of very complex thought processes, up to and including what we're capable of now at that time, society didn't give us this ability.), I'm with you on the second.
We were adapted into scavengers. That was our role as a species. Our bodily structure is exactly that of a scavenger. Just far far advanced.
Society developed teamwork, culture, a language, tools, etc,etc,etc.
It does depend on what we assign value to though. If we follow this, then humans (or animals with a society) are the things that should be given rights. However, this will get people from PETA on our backs, so how do we deal with that? =P
Food, shelter, mates.
These are the basic needs of our species.
What we have developed into is far more complex than what was ever expected of us.
We as societies have established new rights, new needs, and they shall continue to grow until we wipe ourselves out, or the sun burns out.
PETA?
lulz
Uric. Marry me. Now.
I never knew this side of you!
kk, wedding can be next week?
Wait until you see my back-side.
-------------
Also, for everyone reading, I'm not quite as... polite as this gentleman here. If you are offended, well, too bad ;) If you don't like it, chip in and point out how any of it is wrong.
Hear that? I'm nice.
~~~~~~~~~~
<~Lightningkid> I'm a spiteful dickhead
<Muur> Ah, good old Dutch Wall Sex..
<~Fish> I love handling dicks
<~Lightningkid> I'm a spiteful dickhead
<Muur> Ah, good old Dutch Wall Sex..
<~Fish> I love handling dicks
Originally Posted by Uric
Science requires an open mind
Of course, but if we're going for true beliefs, then science is a very reliable way to get them.
Science is more than willing to look at essentially any hypothesis or idea, provided that it has evidence to back it up. (Or at the very least, tests suggested to help it along.)
Originally Posted by Uric
Let me answer your question with a question.
Your example shows matter as the determining factor of an existence, correct?
In that case, how do we knew things such as emotions are real? There is no real way to prove it to anyone other than our brain seems to react to stimuli of different sorts to make our body react.
The reaction is the physical part, but how does the emotion (being mental we assume) get proven?
Emotions = chemicals in the brain.
I'm sure people do view emotions as a "mental" phenomenon, I would just say they're mistaken. That doesn't mean they're dumb or stupid, just that we're so used to assigning this vague, almost mystical meaning to things that we can't explain, that we assign it to things within our own bodies that we can actually explain now.
Originally Posted by Uric
I have to study the brain as part of my course.
The thing that I am most amazed by is how vast it's ability is.
In a split second it can determine a from be and react with c. But the amazing thing is, it can do this while dealing with multiple other things at the same time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I may just be arguing semantics here, but from what I've read we can't actually do multiple things at the same time. We do have the ability to switch between activities really bloody fast, but we can't think of two separate things at the same time. Anyways, this is no more amazing than a computer being able to compute things quickly.
Might help to mention that I'm taking the position that we're just advance biological "computers" of sorts. (No free will, etc)
Originally Posted by Uric
Please, pinch me if I'm moving too far away from theory and more into the physical side of things.
The brain in a sub-conscious way can keep processes such as breathing, cellular diffusion, protein destruction, protein production, heart beating, blood circulation, etc etc etc. The list goes on.
These are more automatic "programs" running in some part of the brain.
Originally Posted by Uric
When you bring conscious processes such as walking and talking and eating into it, it's really quite amazing how it can cope with it without a bother.
Again, correct me if I'm wrong here (I've only taken a few psych classes), but for simple actions, or sometimes even complex ones, as long as it's repeated enough then the neural pathways are reinforced enough that it can become an automatic response. Another "program" that we can switch on and off.
Originally Posted by Uric
Illusions are when the brain illudes itself. Nothing more, nothing less. It gets so warped up in itself that it starts to tell you that something is there. If you over-think something that the brain is doing that should not be, you will get nowhere and end up dazed or confused. This is fact as the brain cannot determine why, but only what when it comes to such a situation.
It's ability is limitless because of this.
Take dreaming for example.
You can drift off into an external reality. But really, you're just inside your own head. You can feel, you can see, you can hear, you can sense. But it is all inside your head. Relate this back to the real world, the brain is the key to ALL of these things, key to our existence. Why what is what. Etcetcetc.
(I love the brain, sorry)
For dreams, they're not an "external reality". We have no conclusive theory explaining dreams yet, so I can't go into too much depth. However, I can say that the leading three (at least when I went to school) said that dreams were nothing more than our brain either interpreting random signals or going over bits and pieces of the days events (and our interpretation of these bits and pieces mixed in with external noises & physical input)
*To explain the part in brackets, while sleeping, it's thought that we are able to incorporate things happening in the real world (car alarm, dog barking, etc) into our dreams in order to stay asleep.
No need to apologize, I love the brain too =)
Originally Posted by Uric
As in we, the Homo Sapiens Sapiens?
In that example, yes.
If going further into it, I would say thinking rational agents. It doesn't exclude other species.
Originally Posted by Uric
There is a such thing as an uprising, a turnover, a riot (i suppose) which can keep these kinds of things in check.
Because of the advanced society we live in, without "leaders" the world as we know it would be a complete shambles. Yes, it's pretty nasty and rough now. But it's about a million times better than what it would be without guidance.
Imagine each man being able to run everything, being allowed to do anything.
There would be blood drawn everywhere. Depression, disease, the list goes on.
Having a generic leadership is what keeps the society from imploding itself. The mayans and aztecs had it right, until their population outgrew their leadership's capability, look at what happened to them? Their races disappeared off the face of the earth.
Alright, I was just following your statement. It seems we've moved past gov't as the source of morality. If that's the case, where does it come from? If the government isn't the one deciding what's right/wrong, is it the people? Is it something else? Is it inherent? Learned?
Originally Posted by Uric
Morality:
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Generic principles regard not exploiting something or someone. Not using them for their own advantage whilst disadvantaging the person or object that advantaged them.
A simple question, but the hardest to answer. Why?
I agree with you to some extent, but why should we not exploit someone or something?
It would undoubtedly be good to live a life of luxury, so why not step on a few toes to get there?
Here's something that might relate. The prisoner's dilemma.
First, start with these assumptions.
Person A & Person B are both psychological egoists (They are self-interested, meaning that while they might care about the other, they care about themselves at least a little bit more), they are rational, and their strongest desire in this context is to spend as little time in jail as possible. Also, there is no fear of possible revenge.
The attorney approaches each of them individually and makes the following offer: "We have enough circumstantial evidence to convict both of you and you will both go to jail, but if you will help me get a clear conviction by confessing while the other remains silent, you will get 1 year and the other will get 10 years. If both of you confess, you will get 5 years each. If you both stay quiet, you will get 3 years each."
Each prisoner knows that the other faces the same situation. They both know that the other knows this.
They are allowed to talk to each other privately about this situation. Quickly, they both realize that if they both stay quiet, they'll each get 3 years, which is the best option where they both get the best outcome together. So, they both promise to remain silent and return to their respective cells. In making a promise to each other, they have each assumed a moral duty/obligation and hence, have a moral reason to remain silent. In the morning the attorney asks each of them to hand to him a note saying what they will do.
What will the notes say?
I'm curious what you think of this, what do you think they would put? Also, what would you put?(If the two answers are different)
Originally Posted by Uric
We were adapted into scavengers. That was our role as a species. Our bodily structure is exactly that of a scavenger. Just far far advanced.
Society developed teamwork, culture, a language, tools, etc,etc,etc.
Ohh, ok, I was thinking modern society. I'll agree if you mean even the rudimentary beginnings of society, as in, when we first started to develop our social nature.
Originally Posted by Uric
Food, shelter, mates.
These are the basic needs of our species.
What we have developed into is far more complex than what was ever expected of us.
We as societies have established new rights, new needs, and they shall continue to grow until we wipe ourselves out, or the sun burns out.
Heh, true enough for the basic needs. I would just narrow it down to "Continued survival" (The continued part would include the mate and offspring, as in, continued survival of your DNA)
Originally Posted by Uric
PETA?
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They're all "Animals have rights too, don't eat meat, it's wrong."
Originally Posted by Uric
kk, wedding can be next week?
Wait until you see my back-side.
Yes. I'm flying out there tonight. I have such plans for you.
xD
