User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 59

  1. #21
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lorkan View Post
    My pants just got wet
    You can borrow my blow dryer.



    .... sorry for the distraction, please get back to the philosophical banter.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #22
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Jennifer, I hope you aren't sincere in the statement that philosophy is "banter".
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  3. #23
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Again, it seems that your theory posits that life arose as a result of rules that can't exist without living creatures to "impose" them upon the infinite!
    No, it does not. Life is a concept of the phenomenal world as Kant calls it, not the noumenal. The infinite realm has nothing at all to do with this.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #24
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post


    Isaac Newton thought that the universe functions like a simple mechanism. A causes B, B causes C, and C caused D. His view was the most intuitive, or that we are part of the big mechanism in the external world, and what we observe around us, is the external world itself, which is as real as it could be. Hume, though pointed out, quite correctly that what we know is that our sensations deliver information to us that we have a hunch has something to do with the external world, yet we do not have any reason to believe that this hunch is correct.
    We may yet discover rules that direct Quantum mechanics in deterministic ways, this would lead us back to a mechanistic universe.

    also, it only makes sense to talk about this world as an illusion if you have some other world in mind. if we can never perceive this "true reality" then this world would for all intensive purposes BE our "reality". There must be some fundemental difference between the two to really make any sense of alternate and 'true realities'.


    We merely know that we have access to the information the senses gave us, but if the senses have collected the information adequately. Kant has suggested that it is not the case as Newton thought, that we are in the world, but the world is in us which is plausible. Newtons intuitive worldview is manifestly untenable. Newtons world is finite because it has many attributes. It means it has been created by another entity, because a finite entity is by definition limited. Yet what created this one another entity, another entity? We shall proceed ad infinitum seeking the first cause without having found one. This leads to the absurdity that something came from nothing. Such a thesis could not be true.
    causation (in this case, entity --> entity) only makes sense "IN" time. we have no reason to think that holds true 'outside' of time (the multi-verse 'bubble' itself). second, we dont need an infinite regress, chaos can arise out of order. if we roll 6 dice 50,000 times, we have a greater than 5/6 chance of getting 1 2 3 4 5 6 eventually. its almost inevitable that either smolen selection or chaos inflationary properties could be reached. the chaos could be vast enough that its practically infinite to us, though not actually infinite (though it all could be infinite, no way to tell right now). chaos makes the most sense as the originator because its the simplest entity imaginable (with no order) and it doesn't need a cause. the first thing will always be a "just was", because there is nothing happening before it (causation only makes sense IN time, once time has started). there cant be anything that sits before the timeline to "cause" because then that thing would be outside of time.


    Therefore Newtons claim that the world of our finite experience is as real as it gets must be false. If we posit that the ultimate reality is infinite, we shall have an opportunity to explain the first cause of the universe. What is infinite is by definition without limits. Therefore what is infinite is all that exists. Thus it by definition has no limits, that means no constrains of time. Therefore it has always existed and will always exist. It also by definition has no creator because it is all that exists. Our world is not infinite, therefore it is an illusion. It is however, our apriori representation of the infinite realm. Because our mind is unable to properly process the infinite realm, it unconsciously represents it in terms of what it can properly process. Hence, this is a clear-cut example of an apriori faculty within the human mind. When a baby is born, it unconsciously translates the infinite realm into finite terms and as a result of this envisages the world as we know it. This is not to be counted as knowledge because the representation of the finite world as we experience is unconscious rather than conscious. In other words, this merely represents the opportunity one has to experience the external world directly. We can conclude that three entities are completely apriori, the vision of the external world or the opportunity to experience it, our physical functions and the potential to function in a certain physical or a psychological way.
    the "innate"ness of the brain or perceiving faculties is simply due to the arrangement of the machinery. the brain begins to collect data, because thats what the machinery does. the geometry of the machinery in the space-time continuum simply determines that this is an arrangement that collects data. its not some magical property that needs to have some starter software. the software is created and written as data is gathered. if we were born with rocket launchers, would you say that 'opportunity to launch rockets' was aprior?



    "In Kant's own terminology, space is nothing more than a 'form of intuition [i.e., perception]'. Kant employs a similar argument to conclude that time, too, is a mere form of intuition. Space and time are features of the phenomenal world - the world as it appears to us - only. The noumenal world - the world of things as they are in themselves - is aspatial and atemporal."

    Time is simply our minds building the perception of the symmetry breaking 4th dimension. so in a sense, time is intuition. Space however, is there. there is no getting around that! our brains may not for example, notice the ENTIRE light spectrum, but that doesnt make the light spectrum we do notice some sort of false reality...

  5. #25
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    While this is a very interesting conversation, I have so far avoided throwing my view into the thread because I ask these questions on a physics type level, and not on the philosophical level. While there are similarities, I'm not familiar enough with Kant to put it in perspective. I will say, that some of Kants suppositions are reflected in modern cosmology and physics, which is a credit to him.



  6. #26
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    We may yet discover rules that direct Quantum mechanics in deterministic ways, this would lead us back to a mechanistic universe.

    also, it only makes sense to talk about this world as an illusion if you have some other world in mind. if we can never perceive this "true reality" then this world would for all intensive purposes BE our "reality". There must be some fundemental difference between the two to really make any sense of alternate and 'true realities'.




    The reality of the phenomenal world, or our space, time and matter, for all practical purposes is as real as it gets. The 'ultimate' reality, or the noumenal realm matters only as a substratum or the underlying layer of our reality. We know nothing of it other than it exists.

    Does this strike you as problematic?
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  7. #27
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    The reality of the phenomenal world, or our space, time and matter, for all practical purposes is as real as it gets. The 'ultimate' reality, or the noumenal realm matters only as a substratum or the underlying layer of our reality. We know nothing of it other than it exists.

    Does this strike you as problematic?
    So this "noumenal realm" is unknowable, unfathomable to human minds, can't be directly proven to exist, and must simply be taken on faith or what is essentially an ontological argument? And this doesn't strike you as so much mysticism?

    I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate; I'd like to understand what you're talking about, but after three pages of exchange, I still have no idea what it is you're trying to express. In every instance where I've attempted to rephrase your theory in clear language, you've simply stated that it's "not that" and left it at that.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  8. #28
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    So this "noumenal realm" is unknowable, unfathomable to human minds, can't be directly proven to exist, and must simply be taken on faith or what is essentially an ontological argument? And this doesn't strike you as so much mysticism?

    I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate; I'd like to understand what you're talking about, but after three pages of exchange, I still have no idea what it is you're trying to express. In every instance where I've attempted to rephrase your theory in clear language, you've simply stated that it's "not that" and left it at that.
    Its not accepted on faith. The reason for accepting it is as follows. Suppose only the phenomenal realm exists. Phenomenal realm is finite. That means it was created by something else. That something else was also created by something else. This way we would go ad infinitum without finding the first cause.

    The noumenal realm solves this problem. It posits that reality is infinite and therefore does not need to be created. What is real is therefore unchangeable or static. Our realm is not real (but for all our practical purposes must be assumed to be real as this is the only world we are capable of knowing), because it changes. It is merely a distorted perception of what is real.

    Hence, if you maintain that life exists, or that there is something rather than nothing, the only way you can support such a thesis is by claiming that there is a noumenal world. Your alternatives are as follows, accepting the absurdity that something came from nothing or claiming that nothing exists because you are unable to explain why something exists. (You would be unable to explain why something exists because you would be unable to find the first cause of all things, as the infinite regress argument shows. If finite entity A was created by finite entity B, finite entity C must have created finite entity D. We would proceed ad infinitum without having found the first cause. The only way there could be a first cause is if such a first cause is infinite.)
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  9. #29
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    Its not accepted on faith. The reason for accepting it is as follows. Suppose only the phenomenal realm exists. Phenomenal realm is finite. That means it was created by something else. That something else was also created by something else. This way we would go ad infinitum without finding the first cause.
    Present evidence and understanding is not sufficient to make these sort of claims. Is the universe finite? Is there a fuller economy? Are there other universes or dimensions? We don't even know what reality is presently, so it strikes me as premature to make the statements you make with such conviction.

    The noumenal realm solves this problem.
    So does "God did it", and I don't buy that, either.

    It posits that reality is infinite and therefore does not need to be created. What is real is therefore unchangeable or static. Our realm is not real (but for all our practical purposes must be assumed to be real as this is the only world we are capable of knowing), because it changes. It is merely a distorted perception of what is real.
    Even if reality necessitates an infinite "noumenal realm", it strikes me as a broad logical leap to assume that this infinite realm must also be unchanging.

    Hence, if you maintain that life exists, or that there is something rather than nothing, the only way you can support such a thesis is by claiming that there is a noumenal world.
    ...or "God did it".

    Your alternatives are as follows, accepting the absurdity that something came from nothing or claiming that nothing exists because you are unable to explain why something exists. (You would be unable to explain why something exists because you would be unable to find the first cause of all things, as the infinite regress argument shows. If finite entity A was created by finite entity B, finite entity C must have created finite entity D. We would proceed ad infinitum without having found the first cause. The only way there could be a first cause is if such a first cause is infinite.)
    Again, until we have acquired a greater understanding of what reality is, one can't make these sort of claims.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  10. #30
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Again, until we have acquired a greater understanding of what reality is, one can't make these sort of claims.
    It seems to me that you've missed my point altogether almost!


    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Present evidence and understanding is not sufficient to make these sort of claims. Is the universe finite? Is there a fuller economy? Are there other universes or dimensions? We don't even know what reality is presently, so it strikes me as premature to make the statements you make with such conviction.claims.

    We know that the Universe is finite and not completely infinite because we have observed at least one entity that has a limit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    So does "God did it", and I don't buy that, either.
    .
    No, it does not. Because in that case there will be another question for the theist to answer. What made God? The theist succumbs to the problem of infinite regress, and the Kantian does not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Even if reality necessitates an infinite "noumenal realm", it strikes me as a broad logical leap to assume that this infinite realm must also be unchanging..
    Describe that leap as thoroughly as possible, as I do not see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Again, until we have acquired a greater understanding of what reality is, one can't make these sort of claims.
    All the evidence we may acquire is evidence of only the world of our experience. On empirical grounds there is no evidence of the noumenal world as it is by definition inscutable. However, there is philosophical evidence in favor of the existence of the noumenal realm, as I have explained in my earlier posts, especially the previous post.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Essence of Human nature
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-16-2013, 11:10 PM
  2. Song Which Capture the Essence of Functions
    By Thalassa in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 04:18 PM
  3. Institutional essence of a University
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 05:58 AM
  4. [NF] Essence of People
    By nolla in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-19-2008, 07:13 PM
  5. [MBTItm] Essence of Feeling
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-20-2008, 05:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO