Most Logical After Death Scenario

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by jupiviv »

Glostik91 wrote:
The point is that you have no way to claim more reality in your direct sense of painfully stubbing over any deduction or implication of such event. Its reality is shaped by the context and its consequences, it's a larger framework where meaning and actions operate. All we're really having here is causality. Which was my point.
All we're really having here is causality? Even after logically debunking causality, you still insist on bringing it up?
You can't debunk causality.
I asked? If a person programs a computer to act exactly like a person, and the computer asks you this question over the internet, would you say that the computer is asking the question? The computer says, "It is I who asks." Who is asking?
I have no way of knowing certainly whether a computer or a person asks me a question on the internet or anywhere else. I can only guess, based on available evidence, if I am interacting with a conscious/unconscious computer/person.
If a bird eats a worm, is the bird experiencing its diet? Is the worm experiencing its demise?

If a plant gets cut off at the stem, is the plant experiencing death?

If a rock heats up in the daylight, is the rock experiencing the warmth?

Where is the boundary between conscious and unconscious?
I myself define consciousness to be the ability to identify things consistently, and relate them to other things.
The randomness I was thinking about is more random than what you are thinking about I think. haha Its more like everything including the laws of physics and philosophy would be randomly reassigned different values. Sort of like the multiverse theory.
'Random' doesn't mean 'uncaused'. It simply means ignorance of the causes.
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

jupiviv wrote:
You can't debunk causality.
I can prove causality contradicts itself.

For something to exist it must be caused.
Causality is itself uncaused.
Therefore causality doesn't exist.
I have no way of knowing certainly whether a computer or a person asks me a question on the internet or anywhere else. I can only guess, based on available evidence, if I am interacting with a conscious/unconscious computer/person.
Who has no way of knowing?
a gutter rat looking at stars
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Glostik91 wrote:For something to exist it must be caused.
The way I understand this is that because "it must be caused", something can not inherently exist. It's empty. Only nature is. Causality does.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Glostik91 wrote:Saying the irony lies in the desire to rectify it is like saying your stomach aches lie in the desire to acquire food. This is utterly obvious to me. What I want to know is what will cause these aches to become satisfied? And how can I sate these aches as easily as simply eating food?
Like biological life is propelled by the desire for food and (hopefully) ending up eating some, the spiritual life as quest for truth is propelled by the desire for truth. But the problem is that desire itself is being examined here. Some people might end up "eating truth", the next cosmological explanation, one after the other. The more stubborn seeker will end up rejecting that, remaining eternally hungry until he realizes why he's craving it and how that is "life" to him.
All we're really having here is causality? Even after logically debunking causality, you still insist on bringing it up?
Because you're only affirming it. The difference lies in the way one sees "existence".
If a bird eats a worm, is the bird experiencing its diet? Is the worm experiencing its demise? Where is the boundary between conscious and unconscious?
The only thing you can be certain about is that you are experiencing those notions and boundaries in those questions. But I still wouldn't call it "reality" because what would then be the "unreal" here?

The randomness I was thinking about is more random than what you are thinking about I think. haha Its more like everything including the laws of physics and philosophy would be randomly reassigned different values. Sort of like the multiverse theory.
Can randomness still have meaning when literally everything is contemplated to be part of that randomness? I think that when that is examined more deeply, the notion becomes something else or it falls apart at the seams. What happens is that there's still some universal hidden order implied just to have randomness meaning actually being random here.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Glostik91 wrote:For something to exist it must be caused.
The way I understand this is that because "it must be caused", something can not inherently exist. It's empty. Only nature is. Causality does.
The distinction between is and does is irrelevant. Both nature and causality are objects of reason, and exist as such in the discernable form of logical and empirical proofs.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

And I'm pretty sure I don't have to state the obvious and say that it doesn't follow from this that reason causes causality, right?
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

Glostik91 wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote: As is obvious, my idea is that consciousness does not properly belong to the individual existence of man, but rather to the social and gregarious nature in him; that, as follows therefrom, it is only in relation to communal and gregarious utility that it is finely developed; and that consequently each of us, in spite of the best intention of understanding himself as individually as possible, and of "knowing himself," will always just call into consciousness the non-individual in him, namely, his "averageness"; - that our thought itself is continuously as it were outvoted by the character of consciousness - by the imperious "genius of the species" therein - and is translated back into the perspective of the herd. Fundamentally our actions are in an incomparable manner altogether personal, unique and absolutely individual there is no doubt about it; - but as soon as we translate them into consciousness, they do not appear so any longer.
This makes sense to me. When I consider past memories, I cannot seem to recall instances of the mundane such as walking to school or eating anything in particular. These mundane things are nebulous. The idea that they are mundane however seems insane though. Why is eating mundane when it is the only thing keeping me alive?

On the other hand, the particular memories I can recall always have some sort of social emotion attached to them. I remember my first kiss for instance. I could tell you literally everything about the room, about the girl, about how I felt while kissing her. These kinds of social memories happen to be my most conscious memories.

I think Nietzsche is on to something here, however why am I this consciousness? Why is it the case that I control these hands, and these eyes, etc. This explains consciousness itself well enough, but it doesn't explain how I got in this consciousness instead of another.
But your questions are a perfect example of what Nietzsche means when he talks about the futility in attempting to understand oneself as individually as possible, and to "know oneself"; about such attempts being constantly outvoted by the character of consciousness.
Between Suicides
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Glostik91 wrote:For something to exist it must be caused.
The way I understand this is that because "it must be caused", something can not inherently exist. It's empty. Only nature is. Causality does.
Something cannot inherently exist? Or everything cannot inherently exist including nature and causality?
a gutter rat looking at stars
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Like biological life is propelled by the desire for food and (hopefully) ending up eating some, the spiritual life as quest for truth is propelled by the desire for truth. But the problem is that desire itself is being examined here. Some people might end up "eating truth", the next cosmological explanation, one after the other. The more stubborn seeker will end up rejecting that, remaining eternally hungry until he realizes why he's craving it and how that is "life" to him.
An eternal hunger? Sounds like some sort of ascetic practice.
Because you're only affirming it. The difference lies in the way one sees "existence".
Haha I'm affirming it by proving its illogical? This is like saying, "you're only affirming married bachelors. The difference lies in the way one sees 'married bachelors.'"
The only thing you can be certain about is that you are experiencing those notions and boundaries in those questions. But I still wouldn't call it "reality" because what would then be the "unreal" here?
What would be the unreal? Obviously the unreal doesn't be. What does be is the real; what doesn't be is the unreal.
Can randomness still have meaning when literally everything is contemplated to be part of that randomness? I think that when that is examined more deeply, the notion becomes something else or it falls apart at the seams. What happens is that there's still some universal hidden order implied just to have randomness meaning actually being random here.
Where did everything come from? No where. Thus it must be the most random thing there is. What could be more random than a thing uncaused?
a gutter rat looking at stars
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Leyla Shen wrote: But your questions are a perfect example of what Nietzsche means when he talks about the futility in attempting to understand oneself as individually as possible, and to "know oneself"; about such attempts being constantly outvoted by the character of consciousness.
Is this knowledge of futility in a certain sense knowing something about oneself?
a gutter rat looking at stars
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Glostik91 wrote:For something to exist it must be caused.
The way I understand this is that because "it must be caused", something can not inherently exist. It's empty. Only nature is. Causality does.
The distinction between is and does is irrelevant.
I agree, as I usually do with myself. But I still found it relevant to phrase it like that in this context. It was actually meant as a variant on the earlier quoted "causality the only force, nature the only law".
Diebert wrote: Both nature and causality are objects of reason, and exist as such in the discernable form of logical and empirical proofs.
Reason as well as logical and empirical "proofs" do not exist inherently either. Meaning they have no existence or self-existence. Even reason cannot conclude that reason "exists". However it can conclude causality is. Reason just has to submit to itself here if it doesn't want to collapse in error.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Glostik91 wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Glostik91 wrote:For something to exist it must be caused.
The way I understand this is that because "it must be caused", something can not inherently exist. It's empty. Only nature is. Causality does.
Something cannot inherently exist? Or everything cannot inherently exist including nature and causality?
It was just referring to the "something" of your statement. Causality removes the idea of anything "existing by itself" or having any "self-nature". Which is how one normally would define something to be real or existing, as having some "being". Yes, causality removes even the idea of its own existence as long as causality would still be defined as anything else but "everything" or "the nature of everything".
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Glostik91 wrote:What would be the unreal? Obviously the unreal doesn't be. What does be is the real; what doesn't be is the unreal.
Experiencing something, or not, cannot answer the question "what really is". Only through thought and philosophy you might.
Where did everything come from? No where. Thus it must be the most random thing there is. What could be more random than a thing uncaused?
You still need randomness to cause it. But I think you're really struggling here with meaninglessness more than randomness. There can be a lot of meaning in random events, unbelievable patterns and what first appears to be random is sometimes later to be shown not to be the case. Especially when you talk about multiverses, it means your universe does not know randomness at quantum level at all.

The problem here really is how to derive meaning, which equals vision, future and essentially provides reality to the human being. Cosmology doesn't provide any.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

Glostik91 wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote: But your questions are a perfect example of what Nietzsche means when he talks about the futility in attempting to understand oneself as individually as possible, and to "know oneself"; about such attempts being constantly outvoted by the character of consciousness.
Is this knowledge of futility in a certain sense knowing something about oneself?
No, because self-knowledge is not a prerequisite of reason:
The very fact that our actions, thoughts, feelings and emotions come within the range of our consciousness at least a part of them - is the result of a terrible, prolonged "must" ruling man s destiny: as the most endangered animal he needed help and protection; he needed his fellows, he was obliged to express his distress, he had to know how to make himself understood and for all this he needed "consciousness" first of all: he had to "know" himself what he lacked, to "know" how he felt, and to " know " what he thought. For, to repeat it once more, man, like every living creature, thinks unceasingly, but does not know it; the thinking which is becoming conscious of itself is only the smallest part thereof, we may say, the most superficial part, the worst part: for this conscious thinking alone is done in words, that is to say, in the symbols for communication, by means of which the origin of consciousness is revealed]. In short, the development of speech and the development of consciousness (not of reason, but of reason becoming self-conscious) go hand in hand—Nietzsche.
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

The quote gets stale by now, Leylandii. Here some fresher ones, from Why I am So Goddamn Clever, chapter 9:
Nietzsche wrote:To become what one is, one must not have the faintest notion of what one is... The whole surface of consciousness - for consciousness is a surface - must be kept clear of all great imperatives. Beware even of every great word, every great pose! So many dangers that the instinct comes too soon to "understand itself"
Personally I feel Nietzsche explores here self-consciousness as ego, a social mask with assignments of mental "states" to others as well as self. With social passions as coinage for this exchange, the "self-defining" project. And there's a clear relationship with the Buddhist definition of "ego-consciousness" or a "separate self" which is a self-sense and entitlement which is not just maintained by personal delusion but is in modern times understood to be created by social forces for an important part. Something Buddhism didn't address much since monastery or a wandering life could easily simplify that part, not to mention the rural nature of society.
Nietzsche wrote:Meanwhile the organizing "idea," destined to mastery, continues to grow in the depths-it begins to command, it leads you slowly back from your deviations and aberrations, it makes ready individual qualities and capacities, which will some day make themselves felt as indispensable to the whole of your task-gradually it cultivates all the serviceable faculties before it ever whispers a word concerning the dominant task, the "goal," the "purpose," and the "meaning."
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

The quote gets stale by now, Leylandii.
That's right, what we need are the new words and phrases, like "social coinage", to call philosophy!
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:
The quote gets stale by now, Leylandii.
That's right, what we need are the new words and phrases, like "social coinage", to call philosophy!
Yes, it's a great term but not really new of course. You'd be familiar with Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments for example. The only thing he leaves out is that "gains from trade" which all humans would seek relentlessly in all social transactions are power based, not just about some capital or wealth (only as one of the means or better: expression). If someone has suicide or destruction as power inducing value, that will be his attempted gain in all social transactions. All these social transactions are exchanges of social passions but symbolized by tokens and objects in many cases. Only after this, very late in the game and crawling in the dust of things, the Marxist comes along analyzing with materialist dialectics. But he comes way "after the fact" being too European clever for his own good.

The way it's used in Daniel M. Gross's The Secret History of Emotion lies more in rhetorics (or "how humans use symbols, especially language, to reach agreement that permits coordinated effort of some sort") where the market of social passions is defined to take place in a contoured world of emotional investments, or personalized values.

Philosophers should pick these low hanging fruits and understand this in relation to Nietzsche's opposition against this "self-consciousness" where people increasingly build their whole existence on, as some kind of beach resort which won't last the seasons.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

Hey, Professor Diebert, if reading tomes of words did the trick, then all university students would be just like you. Oh, wait a minute...
Between Suicides
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It was just referring to the "something" of your statement. Causality removes the idea of anything "existing by itself" or having any "self-nature". Which is how one normally would define something to be real or existing, as having some "being". Yes, causality removes even the idea of its own existence as long as causality would still be defined as anything else but "everything" or "the nature of everything".
How can causality remove any ideas when causality itself isn't even an idea that really exists? A garbage man removes garbage, yet if we throw the garbage man in the garbage he is no longer a garbage man.
a gutter rat looking at stars
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Glostik91 wrote:What would be the unreal? Obviously the unreal doesn't be. What does be is the real; what doesn't be is the unreal.
Experiencing something, or not, cannot answer the question "what really is". Only through thought and philosophy you might.
I think experience is the only thing that solves what really is, an experience of thought, an experience of philosophy, an experience of emotion or of logic. What is there besides experience?

You still need randomness to cause it. But I think you're really struggling here with meaninglessness more than randomness. There can be a lot of meaning in random events, unbelievable patterns and what first appears to be random is sometimes later to be shown not to be the case. Especially when you talk about multiverses, it means your universe does not know randomness at quantum level at all.

The problem here really is how to derive meaning, which equals vision, future and essentially provides reality to the human being. Cosmology doesn't provide any.
Still stuck on cause and effect I see.

If I felt like I was meaningless then I wouldn't be struggling.

Struggle implies a goal. A goal implies meaning. If I have a goal and a meaning, why struggle against meaninglessness?

There can be a lot of meaning in a random event, but what about the most random event? An uncaused event?
a gutter rat looking at stars
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Leyla Shen wrote:
No, because self-knowledge is not a prerequisite of reason:
glostik: Who is this 'I'?

Leyla: I don't know. Obviously its futile to know. Nietzsche told me.

glostik: Who doesn't know?
a gutter rat looking at stars
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Glostik91 wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It was just referring to the "something" of your statement. Causality removes the idea of anything "existing by itself" or having any "self-nature". Which is how one normally would define something to be real or existing, as having some "being". Yes, causality removes even the idea of its own existence as long as causality would still be defined as anything else but "everything" or "the nature of everything".
How can causality remove any ideas when causality itself isn't even an idea that really exists? A garbage man removes garbage, yet if we throw the garbage man in the garbage he is no longer a garbage man.
Well, all you're contemplating are ideas. All derived supposedly from a combination of senses, memory and logic (and all not limited to your "own brain" either!). What you really want is the ability to understand what is true and real, as to distinguish from what is false. And if one doesn't want that, why even be here to discuss it?

You can throw the garbage man out as well of course. But you'll notice that he pops up the moment your hand reaches for "the next thing". Then you start to realize the nature of that garbage man, as well as your hand.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Glostik91 wrote:I think experience is the only thing that solves what really is, an experience of thought, an experience of philosophy, an experience of emotion or of logic. What is there besides experience?
But experience does not provide any meaning. Without meaning, you don't have any reality! To call experiences the hallmark of reality, you're throwing reason on the garbage heap and claim to have done philosophy. It seems lazy and nihilistic. Meaningless stupidity and random imagination are not "real" unless you change the real to mean also the unreal. But then you're not talking about reality any more but about absolutes. Your experiences however are subjective and relative, that's their nature.
Struggle implies a goal. A goal implies meaning. If I have a goal and a meaning, why struggle against meaninglessness?
Struggle just implies it's not easy. But there are aspects to philosophy which challenge whatever gave meaning and direction before. Self preservation mostly.
There can be a lot of meaning in a random event, but what about the most random event? An uncaused event?
There cannot so such thing like an uncaused event. By definition an event is "something that comes" -- and goes. It's a change. Which is another way to describe causality. Things change because they do not exist as thing: they appear only to us as effect and cannot be constant. Change is real, the constant can only be eternal.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Leyla Shen »

Glostik91 wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:
No, because self-knowledge is not a prerequisite of reason:
glostik: Who is this 'I'?

Leyla: I don't know. Obviously its futile to know. Nietzsche told me.

glostik: Who doesn't know?
Your difficulties with language and Nietzsche's powers of discernment when it comes to self-consciousness have nothing to do with me, I'm afraid.
Between Suicides
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Most Logical After Death Scenario

Post by Glostik91 »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Well, all you're contemplating are ideas. All derived supposedly from a combination of senses, memory and logic (and all not limited to your "own brain" either!). What you really want is the ability to understand what is true and real, as to distinguish from what is false. And if one doesn't want that, why even be here to discuss it?

You can throw the garbage man out as well of course. But you'll notice that he pops up the moment your hand reaches for "the next thing". Then you start to realize the nature of that garbage man, as well as your hand.
The next thing. haha Cause and effect only pops up again because that's what you think is happening. Its not. Cause and effect doesn't exist. It is logically proven to be a contradiction.

Tell me that cause and effect is logical and then tell me how you skirt around the logical proof of its illogicalness.
But experience does not provide any meaning. Without meaning, you don't have any reality! To call experiences the hallmark of reality, you're throwing reason on the garbage heap and claim to have done philosophy. It seems lazy and nihilistic. Meaningless stupidity and random imagination are not "real" unless you change the real to mean also the unreal. But then you're not talking about reality any more but about absolutes. Your experiences however are subjective and relative, that's their nature.
Are you saying a meaningful experience is a contradiction? Why can I not have a meaningful experience?

I can talk about an orange all day long. I can describe the enzymes. I can describe the history of oranges. I can tell you about its genetic makeup. I can go on and on and on. But how do I describe the taste to one who has never had an orange? What reason is there to the taste of an orange?
Struggle just implies it's not easy. But there are aspects to philosophy which challenge whatever gave meaning and direction before. Self preservation mostly.
I'm just saying in order to struggle there must be something to struggle against. The goal is to overcome.

Self preservation is as good a goal as any.
There cannot so such thing like an uncaused event. By definition an event is "something that comes" -- and goes. It's a change. Which is another way to describe causality. Things change because they do not exist as thing: they appear only to us as effect and cannot be constant. Change is real, the constant can only be eternal.
I'm telling you that change isn't real.
All things change.
Change is a thing.
Therefore change itself must change.

How can change (the constant that can only be eternal) change? haha

You tell me about change, but it doesn't make any sense. You're telling me something that is illogical. Do you see it?
a gutter rat looking at stars
Locked