Nothing Exists

[swamplizard]

Being creates thoughts; conscious discernment may be illusory in product, but is real in function.

Nothing does not exist.

best,
swampy

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Being creates thoughts; conscious discernment may be illusory in product, but is real in function.

Nothing does not exist.

best,
swampy

Being does not create thoughts, there are some beings that are not conscious, nor were we always conscious. And there is no evidence that being exists, so we cannot be sure thoughts are created by being. Thoughts could simply just be thoughts, not anything more, no physical reality to them at all.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Being creates thoughts; conscious discernment may be illusory in product, but is real in function.

Nothing does not exist.

best,
swampy

I would say thoughts create being/existence, since nothing can just "be". Everything in our world is an action/verb.

 

[Revoltingest]

Being does not create thoughts....

That is a rash assumption. It is certainly observable that beings create thoughts.
Would you argue that your brain doesn't?

....there are some beings that are not conscious, nor were we always conscious.

This does not deny the claim that beings (other beings) create thoughts.

And there is no evidence that being exists.....

It is demonstrable that beings exist.
Perhaps you & I are mere Turing tests, but real posters in the 'real world' can verify that they & others exist.

....so we cannot be sure thoughts are created by being. Thoughts could simply just be thoughts, not anything more, no physical reality to them at all.

To paraphrase Swampy, for all practical purposes, our reality functions as physical reality.
Tis idle & untestable speculation that all of our perceptions are illusory. Of course,
idle speculation can be a fine thing...one just ought not invest certainty in musings.

 

[KovertKitty]

Yes we have experienced them, and will continue experiencing them, though this still does not make them objective. They vary, they are only of what one person thinks of them as. There is no objective evil or objective good, they are just opinions made by our personal perspective. The nuclear missile that America sent to Japan was good for some people: The Americans.

You didn't seem to catch what I said last post... The things that people think compose 'Evil' or 'Good' (i.e. Death Penalty, Hitler's 'Ultimate Race', Homosexuality, etc...) are the subjective aspects, however the experiences of those subjective things, the impact it has on people, and the fact that it can be considered 'Good' or 'Evil' goes to show that the concept, the essence of 'Good' and 'Evil' are indeed objective...

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That is a rash assumption. It is certainly observable that beings create thoughts.
Would you argue that your brain doesn't?

We evolved to have sentience in protection. It isn't needed for a brain to have thoughts, or else try telling that to jellyfish.

This does not deny the claim that beings (other beings) create thoughts.

No it doesn't at all. That wasn't the point.

It is demonstrable that beings exist. Perhaps you & I are mere Turing tests, but real posters in the 'real world' can verify that they & others exist.

In what way? Can you prove what you see is real? I've already shown how subjectivity is the blanket covering it up. How can you know what you verify is correct?

To paraphrase Swampy, for all practical purposes, our reality functions with physical reality.

The physical reality, beyond the rest, is not proven to exist. Our bodies do not exist as we do not have matter that stays with us all the time. Our atoms fly off of us, that is all that we are made of, so the only thing constant would be our thoughts, but thoughts do not exist physically, thus we are nonexistent.

Tis idle & untestable speculation that all of our perceptions are illusory. Of course,
idle speculation can be a fine thing...just don't invest certainty in your musings.

Rather, it is an untestable speculation that all of our perceptions are real. I never claimed they had to be an illusion, except for the subconscious part which I've provided reasoning for. Colour does not even exist, good bad do not exist, it's all subjective. Whatever reality we are looking at is a subjective one and is not official. Everything we live in is artificial, we are a dream within an objective reality, which we only merely see.

Other than that I never claimed it was an illusion, therefore I do not have to provide evidence that it is an illusion, you have to provide evidence that reality exists.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You didn't seem to catch what I said last post... The things that people think compose 'Evil' or 'Good' (i.e. Death Penalty, Hitler's 'Ultimate Race', Homosexuality, etc...) are the subjective aspects, however the experiences of those subjective things, the impact it has on people, and the fact that it can be considered 'Good' or 'Evil' goes to show that the concept, the essence of 'Good' and 'Evil' are indeed objective...

What do you think objective means? The experiences are objective BUT what we are experiencing is subjective, that doesn't shake my claim. The experiences that are objective mean nothing.

 

[idav]

What do you think objective means? The experiences are objective BUT what we are experiencing is subjective, that doesn't shake my claim. The experiences that are objective mean nothing.

Objective experience is not subjective it is just a piece of the complete objective picture. Subjective experience is something different all together.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Objective experience is not subjective it is just a piece of the complete objective picture. Subjective experience is something different all together.

I never said it was. The thing we are experiencing (in this case good and evil) are subjective.

 

[idav]

I never said it was. The thing we are experiencing (in this case good and evil) are subjective.

Maybe I misread one or both of you. Wasn't he saying the same thing I said?

Just admit it, Death is EEEEEVIL plain and simple!!! It is LIVE backwards for gods sakes!!!

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Maybe I misread one or both of you. Wasn't he saying the same thing I said?

I may have misread, but I think he was more of saying that the experience is objective but didn't say anything about evil being objective.

Just admit it, Death is EEEEEVIL plain and simple!!! It is LIVE backwards for gods sakes!!!

xD

 

[Revoltingest]

We evolved to have sentience in protection. It isn't needed for a brain to have thoughts, or else try telling that to jellyfish.

In light of evolution, the usefulness of thought was the impetus for brains coming into existence.

In what way? Can you prove what you see is real? I've already shown how subjectivity is the blanket covering it up. How can you know what you verify is correct?

By interacting & testing, we describe what we call reality. This, like everything in science, is not "provable"....its useful. If our
observed reality is a subset of some larger reality which is inaccessible to us, then that larger reality is effectively irrelevant.

The physical reality, beyond the rest, is not proven to exist. Our bodies do not exist as we do not have matter that stays with us all the time. Our atoms fly off of us, that is all that we are made of, so the only thing constant would be our thoughts, but thoughts do not exist physically, thus we are nonexistent.

Matter exists in our reality. This is demonstrable.

Rather, it is an untestable speculation that all of our perceptions are real. I never claimed they had to be an illusion, except for the subconscious part which I've provided reasoning for. Colour does not even exist, good bad do not exist, it's all subjective. Whatever reality we are looking at is a subjective one and is not official. Everything we live in is artificial, we are a dream within an objective reality, which we only merely see.

All the things which you say don't exist are observable in our reality.
To turn the tables, how can you demonstrate that it isn't real?

Other than that I never claimed it was an illusion, therefore I do not have to provide evidence that it is an illusion, you have to provide evidence that reality exists.

But I don't say that reality (as you define it) exists...only that it functions as we perceive it to exist.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

In light of evolution, the usefulness of thought was the impetus for brains coming into existence.

We may only know thoughts coming from brains, but that means nothing. Especially to jelly fish...

By interacting & testing, we describe what we call reality. This, like everything in science, is not "provable"....its useful. If our
observed reality is a subset of some larger reality which is inaccessible to us, then that larger reality is effectively irrelevant.

How do we know this reality is larger? How do we know it is another reality that exists behind us?

Matter exists in our reality. This is demonstrable.

How do you know our reality exists though? It may be observable and demonstrable but that does not prove its existence.

All the things which you say don't exist are observable in our reality.
To turn the tables, how can you demonstrate that it isn't real?

Asking me to demonstrate how it isn't real is like a theist asking you to prove God isn't real... I do not follow your logic in that case. Again, what we observe doesn't have to be real.

But I don't say that reality (as you define it) exists...only that it functions as we perceive it to exist.

We perceive it differently than other species, let alone other humans.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

What is society compared to the universe? What is society once it all collapses and there are no records of it existing at all besides for simple atoms?

What we do each day harms something, we cannot avoid it. They are in fact so small sometimes that they do not matter to us. But really think about it, we are just that small compared to the solar system, or probably even smaller, and that is just the solar system, we're talking planets, billions of miles out there. Compared to the whole universe we are nothing but dust in the wind.

I agree we should try to avoid harming ourselves and others', but no matter what we end up harming them anyways, and I'm not generally speaking of harm, because harm too is subjective.

And this it a point I brought up in my post previous to the one you responded to. You attempt to achieve total perspective collapse via comparing everything to the vastness of the entirety of the system whilst considering the intrinsic value of each and every constituent part within that self-same system.

Doing so, without considering the distribution of influence upon the whole of the system, renders not just you or us or our actions meaningless. It renders everything meaningless. What is the point of that single atom in the grand scheme of the universe filled with uncountable number of atoms?

Do not fall into the trap of assuming that because our actions at some point in the future approach meaninglessness from the perspective of the material we interacted with at the time that our actions are objectively meaningless. What you are suggesting so far places you into the highly "vaunted" category of absolute nihilist and a weak sollipsist.

Try and live your life as though none of this mattered; as though none of it was real; as though everything were no more than dream. You will fail. And in a related note; whatever atoms we manipulated interacted with in our time influence all the atoms around us. Our influence while diffuse to near infinity also has a nigh infinite number of things that they have influenced. As near as a I can tell there is a conservation of meaning. Meaning can only be attributed or redistributed; it can neither be created nor destroyed so long as consciousness still exists somewhere to appreciate it. I for one do not recommend you try and compare nigh-infinite cardinalities. The human brain does not support the architecture necessary to make it useful to us.

Yes, each and every day harm is done. Most of it is unintended and unavoidable. Moreover much of it is done in defense of our person. I cannot feel sorry for the loss of the microbes which were trying to reproduce and in so doing bring harm to my person. And I will not recognize the immorality of this harm because defense of your life and quality of life is not immoral. The reason why most people don't appreciate the last half (defense of quality of life) is because in many cases someone is taking advantage of others; harming others in order to bolster their quality of life and so they are doing more than merely defending their quality of life if they try to continue acting as they have.

Interesting side note: Each and every day benefit is accomplished. Most of it is unintended and unavoidable (symbiotic organisms; expelling carbon dioxide for plants to breathe). Should we consider this as "objectively good" if we consider generalized harm done to be "objectively evil?" If they are to be considered in our moral calculation I would have to assume that they more or less balance out.

I try not to kill insects when I am outside because to an extent I view that as their home. I would not want some cosmic super being to stomp me flat in my home on my home planet (well anywhere, but if I haven't trespassed, then I am trying to support a general principle of violence avoidance where no trespass has occurred), so I support this by not attacking other beings "in their home." All bets are off inside my house. Inside my house it means harm is being done to myself and my family. I defend my quality of life by removing said beings as expediently as possible.


And herein lay the rub; most humans do not possess the capability of recognizing general principles which would effect better living conditions across humanity. And yet we have done this successfully in the past. In each and every culture across the planet an incest taboo exists (there are some differences yes, but still existent). So we are capable of recognizing things which produce general benefits for humanity. The question is are we going to stop there? Do we admit defeat and continue groping about blindly whilst looking wistfully at a large universe? Or do we do something about it and try and improve our human condition via testing principles to see how they affect us?

Declaring that because everything is subjective that this means we can abrogate our responsibility to our children, to the future, to society, and to ourselves to try and change things for the better is a defeatist, and from my perspective an immoral one too, position.

MTF

 

[swamplizard]

There certainly is a lot of profound thought being generated concerning this topic, along with a few others. I am not certain that the rest of you exist, but I know that I exist, thus nothing does not exist.

bestest of being,
swampy

 

[Gjallarhorn]

There certainly is a lot of profound thought being generated concerning this topic, along with a few others. I am not certain that the rest of you exist, but I know that I exist, thus nothing does not exist.

bestest of being,
swampy

Just to play Socrates's advocate, how do you know?

 

[Willamena]

Just to play Socrates's advocate, how do you know?

I'm going to borrow that someday.

 

[Revoltingest]

We may only know thoughts coming from brains, but that means nothing. Especially to jelly fish...

It means something to the brains.
I don't care how jellyfish feel....only how they taste.
And yes, they are yummy at our local Chinese restaurants.

How do we know this reality is larger? How do we know it is another reality that exists behind us?

There is what we experience. If you posit that this some illusion or simulation, then this illusion or simulation would take place in some larger reality.
Think of set theory....a set of a certain size cannot exist within a smaller set.

How do you know our reality exists though? It may be observable and demonstrable but that does not prove its existence.

Our reality is what we perceive. I don't claim that it is the only reality or that there aren't things which we don't perceive.

Asking me to demonstrate how it isn't real is like a theist asking you to prove God isn't real... I do not follow your logic in that case. Again, what we observe doesn't have to be real.

I ask you to demonstrate your claim because you state it as fact. What is the basis for saying there is no reality?
Moreover, any proof you'd use would be part of the reality which you say doesn't exist. That wouldn't lead anywhere productive, eh?

We perceive it differently than other species, let alone other humans.

Our perception is less than perfect, so we'd never fully grok some absolute reality.
We must make do with what we have.

 

[swamplizard]

Just to play Socrates's advocate, how do you know?

I can answer the question.

best,
swampy

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I can answer the question.

best,
swampy

Are you the one answering though, or are you just laying claim to the thoughts that arise?