why are we individuals? [Archive]

BoulderHead

Jun19-03, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by wuliheron
...For example, shyness is inherited and is obviously a survival trait.Huh, I'd actually not heard about that before. Interesting.
Originally posted by Kerrie;
... - yet, personality wise, we are unique...why? this question is not limited to human beings either, as my roommate's dog has quite the personality for example... I think all the different species I’ve ever watched for any length of time showed differences in personality, and I mean even spiders too, having raised several different types in a terrarium years ago. Often, especially in regards to cloning a complete human being, I hear that the clone will be different due to its environment (recall the Adolf Hitler cloned type movies). But what about family members that grew up very close to one another and shared many similar experiences. Don’t their personalities often differ radically from one to the other all the same? I’m half-suspecting that even if two people share the exact same influences they may still end up with different personalities. I wouldn’t be surprised, though I really don’t have any idea, to find that even clones raised side by side might end up with quite different personalities from each other despite having so much in common (Somebody out there may be planning just such an experiment, for all I suspect).
I find this a fascinating topic, actually, and if there is any merit to what I’ve mentioned then I wonder if a strand of DNA has multiple personalities…

In any event, this uniqueness is one of the reasons why I have a great love for nearly all living creatures (I don’t have much love for germs, viruses, and such ilk, however). I actually go out of my way to avoid stepping on a bug, though in my youth I was less considerate.

wimms

Jun19-03, 04:41 PM

If you consider temperature, humidity and background noise as similar environment, then thats not it. Twins = clones. Its those repeating tiny things, like book that one twin did read while other was watching TV, one twin got scared while other was laughing, etc. Two people can never share exact same influences, it would need same single physical person.

Personality imo has to do with conciousness, and existence of concept of "I". I find fascinating to notice this with spiders and bugs. That separates machine from alive.

wuliheron

Jun19-03, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by wimms
If you consider temperature, humidity and background noise as similar environment, then thats not it. Twins = clones. Its those repeating tiny things, like book that one twin did read while other was watching TV, one twin got scared while other was laughing, etc. Two people can never share exact same influences, it would need same single physical person.

Personality imo has to do with conciousness, and existence of concept of "I". I find fascinating to notice this with spiders and bugs. That separates machine from alive.

Ah hah! my computer is alive! It certainly has personality, but a rather cantancorous one.

FZ+

Jun19-03, 05:07 PM

Iacchus32

Jun19-03, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by wimms
Iacchus32: Don't compromise yourself. It's all you've got. [;)]
You mean - stupidity? AAhhh...[;)] No I don't. I mean being able to "think" for oneself. Rather than following blindly the "rule of the day."

drag

Jun20-03, 11:24 AM

Greetings !
Originally posted by Kerrie
a very basic question that i wonder a lot about...here we are on this earth, along with all the other forms of life, we physically must survive in the same manner - requiring sleep, food, adequate health - yet, personality wise, we are unique...why? this question is not limited to human beings either, as my roommate's dog has quite the personality for example...
Why do we have different body sizes and forms ?
Why are there different creatures ?
Genetics.

Both a wider as well as a more specific aspect is
the outside world - all "our" interactions with it.

Live long and prosper.

Kerrie

Jun20-03, 11:37 AM

draq, i am not looking for the surface answer...science tells us how with genetics, i am asking why?

drag

Jun20-03, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
draq
[:(]
And the letters are not even near each other...[:D]
Originally posted by Kerrie
i am not looking for the surface answer...science tells us how with genetics, i am asking why?
Merrie, I'm not sure that I understand where this is going. [;)]
Please, explain yourself if you mean something other than
the two factors I've mentioned.

Peace and long life.

Tiberius

Jun20-03, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Kerrie
a very basic question that i wonder a lot about...here we are on this earth, along with all the other forms of life, we physically must survive in the same manner - requiring sleep, food, adequate health - yet, personality wise, we are unique...why? this question is not limited to human beings either, as my roommate's dog has quite the personality for example...

Well I'm no neuroscientist, but according to what I think I understand...

Genetics determine a lot of things about our brains, but that is all modified by other conditions as we grow into an infant. Then, as we experience more and more, those experiences build on one another, creating unique conditioned responses, opinions, attitudes, and so on. In short, we are unique because we lead unique lives.

It is all based on how brains work. You can imagine the primate brain (and other somewhat intricate brains) as having two major areas (It's a lot more complex, but this simplistic way of dividing it is good for my point for now). There's the higher brain and the lower brain.

The lower brain (sometimes referred to as the instinctive or "lizard" brain) consists of the brain stem, cerebellum, and a few other parts. It's lower in the physical sense but also in an evolutionary and complexity sense. You'll find this area in everything all the way down to ants. It's the dominant "behavior maker" in animals (and some people who are brain damaged or who have suffered extremely traumatic early lives). In this area, the nerves are "hard wired", the cells have specific connections that are directly determined by DNA and don't change very much. This wiring is also a lot simpler. The simplicity of these connections mean that responses are quick and efficient, but it also means that they are crude and simplistic. This area gives us most of our instinctive impulses. Someone throws something at you and you react without "thinking about it" for example.

The upper brain is made up of "unspecialized brain cells". In these the DNA says, "here's the brain cells and how they act individually". Then, the experiences you have via your sensory input (sight, smell, taste, touch, feel) cause connections to form between the neurons (a type of brain cell). The nature of these experiences determines how and where the connections form and how strong they are. This not only codes all your memories, but also forms your "personality", or at least a good deal of it (remember the lower brain is still there and competing for attention). So, since everyone's experiences are different, these connections are different, and therefore give you a different personality than others. The good thing about unspecialized brain cells is that they can customize to the needs of the individual so s/he doesn't have to wait millenia for evolution to adapt his/her whole species. The bad thing is that the upper brain, being much more complex, tends to be slower and the connections more tenuous. That's why instincts feel so much more powerful an impulse than decisions made intellectually, and why it takes longer to come to complex conclusions than to react to being pricked.

So your upper and lower brain are constantly competing for "control" of you. This is the old thing about controlling your impulses and doing something even if you know it's not a good idea (like eating cheesburgers or cheating on a spouse - not to equate the two!).

An interesting thing I saw once was a study where they weighed the brains of children that had died. Some of them were from stable loving homes, and others were from abusive or otherwise threatening environments. What they found was that, for those children that developed in threatening environments, their lower brains weighed more in proportion to their upper brains, and vice versa.

This, as it was theorized, was due to the fact that when areas of the brain are used more they form more connections (these connections are physical and so have weight). The brain adapts to environmental needs so this happens. The result is that the lower brain will be more likely to overpower the upper brain whenever a conflict occurs (like you're mad and want to hit someone, but your upper brain knows you'll go to jail and shouldn't). This may give a little insight into why an unhealthy upbringing may lend itself more often to criminal behavior (although not a certainty, as many exceptions surely exist).

Dogs have some "upper brain" too, but not as much as us. Nevertheless, it's enough to learn tricks and develop their own personalities. In general, the more upper brain a species has, the more individualized it's members will be. For example, ants have almost no upper brain. Most all of their behavior is genetically determined so you won't see a great deal of difference between individuals, even if you give them vastly different experiences.

So, our personalities have a lot in common. We all like to be loved, we have a propensity for anger, jealousy, and so on. We all laugh, etc. A lot of this comes from the fact that we have the same DNA as a species, which gives us the lower half of our behavior. The areas where we differ are mostly due to that ability of the upper brain to form according to individual experience.

(note: the brain is actually a lot more diverse and complex than this would indicate, but this abstraction helps to get across a general way the whole personality differences thing works, at least as I understand it.)

Zantra

Jun20-03, 05:04 PM

I think what Kerrie is asking for is more of a philosphical answer, and not a scientific one.

The difference between the scientific perspective and the philosophical one is quite profound when it comes to humanistic experience. It's part of the emotions that make humans so complexed. For example. Take smelling your favorite food or a rose, or something pleasant. Scientifically your olfunctory senses(aka nose), recieves the smell and sends signals to your hypocampus where it's cross-referenced with a past memory and interpreted as a pleasing experience. This illicits a "good feeling"

Then there's the other side of things. Maybe the smell of that rose brings up a memory of a girl(or boy) you once knew, and a time of complete happiness. Yes science can tell us how we go to that memory, but it definitely can't calculate the emotional side of things, or the experience of it. Science can't explain love. I mean sure, it's an electrical response in your brain very similar to large amounts of choclate. But the experience of it is quite different, or else we'd all have this pavlovian thought of chocolate every time we fell in love. hehehe

Ok I'm off on a tangent....

We are unique because it's what defines us as human beings. it's as much a part of what makes us humans as our eyes, noses, ears, and brains. In part it's what has allowed us to evolve into the higher (relativistically) form of life that we've become. Without it we'd simply be an autonomous amoeba swiming around in a pond without rhyme or reason. I happen to believe that individuality is an inherent charteristic of all higher forms of life, and that it's what allows us to develop. It's what brings about society, social interaction, and creativity. Without it, we would lack curiosity, and the ability to grow intellectually. Lack of individuality stifles independent thought, and forces us to all think and act alike. this leads to a society much like in the book 1984, where there was no growth, only following a set pattern. Without indivuduality, Einstien would have just been some schmuk sitting in a patent office for the rest of his life. Mozart, Beethoven, Newton. they'd all of just been "some guy" toiling through life like everyone else.

Individuality leads to curiosity, which leads us to question everything, which leads us to growth. This is the reason for individuality.

Kerrie was that the answer you were looking for ?

Kerrie

Jun20-03, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by drag
[:(]
And the letters are not even near each other...[:D]

Merrie, I'm not sure that I understand where this is going. [;)]
Please, explain yourself if you mean something other than
the two factors I've mentioned.

Peace and long life.
sorry draG...i didn't mean to offend you in misspelling your name...

genetics explains how we are unique, but genetics does not provide the philosophical answer to why we are unique, hence why genetics exist...and genetics explains how we are physically different along with some pyschological differences...but when i am asking the question why we are individuals, i am mainly referring to our pyshochological differences - why does joe like blue, why does jane have an interest in horses, why does my dog like to show off...etc

Kerrie

Jun20-03, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
Without indivuduality, Einstien would have just been some schmuk sitting in a patent office for the rest of his life. Mozart, Beethoven, Newton. they'd all of just been "some guy" toiling through life like everyone else.

Individuality leads to curiosity, which leads us to question everything, which leads us to growth. This is the reason for individuality.

Kerrie was that the answer you were looking for ? [/B]

bingo[;)]

Tiberius

Jun26-03, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
I think what Kerrie is asking for is more of a philosphical answer, and not a scientific one.

But philosophic answers do not preclude a scientific understanding of what's happening. In fact, they need to fall in-line with the scientific model or else they are meaningless. If, by "philosophic" you mean "poetic", as in not using any technical words and phrasing things so they sound pretty, then I'd recommend looking at poetry. But Philosophy is supposed to be the love of wisdom. And wisdom includes understanding reality. Too many people are hung up on ANCIENT philosophy and refuse to mux science with it. When they do this they are engaging in archaic dialogue that does not advance true understanding and has no purpose except as artistic recreation (which isn't bad if you understand that this is what you're doing). There is one, and only one reason why we are individuals - and that is the reason I outlined before (plus or minus some particulars which had been dropped for simplicity's sake, or may be discovered in the future). I'll explain what I mean in other responses below...

The difference between the scientific perspective and the philosophical one is quite profound when it comes to humanistic experience. It's part of the emotions that make humans so complexed. For example. Take smelling your favorite food or a rose, or something pleasant. Scientifically your olfunctory senses(aka nose), recieves the smell and sends signals to your hypocampus where it's cross-referenced with a past memory and interpreted as a pleasing experience. This illicits a "good feeling"

There is no such thing as a "philosophic reality" and a "scientific reality" - each equal and concurrent. There is ONE reality, and ONE thing that either IS or IS NOT happening. The scientific description of smelling a flower is the only correct and literally true one. But a scientific description is no substitute for actually experiencing what is being described. For that, you have to BE a human and BE SMELLING a flower. So, the particles do what they do, and if you're a human, you will know what that feels like.

Then there's the other side of things. Maybe the smell of that rose brings up a memory of a girl(or boy) you once knew, and a time of complete happiness. Yes science can tell us how we go to that memory, but it definitely can't calculate the emotional side of things, or the experience of it. Science can't explain love. I mean sure, it's an electrical response in your brain very similar to large amounts of choclate. But the experience of it is quite different, or else we'd all have this pavlovian thought of chocolate every time we fell in love. hehehe

What do you mean when you say that science cannot "calculate the emotional side of things"? It can describe how and why emotions exist and how and why they function. But a description is not an experience and vice versa. This is not a limitation of science, but simply a matter of category by definition. Science is not designed to replicate experiences. But the question was "why are we individuals?" And the scientific answer is the only right one. If the question had been "What is it like to BE an individual?" then the answer would have had to have been a description of the experience in the language you're using.

We are unique because it's what defines us as human beings.

Here's the problem (and why purely "philosophic" answers bereft of any scientific understanding are ultimately unsatisfying to me). When you say "X because Y", this means that "Y" is the CAUSE of "X". So, what you're really saying here is...

"Needing something to define us as human beings CAUSES us to be unique."

But this is nonsense, and not a real answer to the question of "why are we individuals". You may as well make up a story about the magical pixie who came to the earth spreading individuality dust. It may be as entertaining, warm, and fuzzy, but it offers no further understanding and does not answer the question.

it's as much a part of what makes us humans as our eyes, noses, ears, and brains. In part it's what has allowed us to evolve into the higher (relativistically) form of life that we've become. Without it we'd simply be an autonomous amoeba swiming around in a pond without rhyme or reason. I happen to believe that individuality is an inherent charteristic of all higher forms of life, and that it's what allows us to develop. It's what brings about society, social interaction, and creativity. Without it, we would lack curiosity, and the ability to grow intellectually. Lack of individuality stifles independent thought, and forces us to all think and act alike. this leads to a society much like in the book 1984, where there was no growth, only following a set pattern. Without indivuduality, Einstien would have just been some schmuk sitting in a patent office for the rest of his life. Mozart, Beethoven, Newton. they'd all of just been "some guy" toiling through life like everyone else.

Individuality leads to curiosity, which leads us to question everything, which leads us to growth. This is the reason for individuality.

The reason for individuality is what it does? That's like saying that "because they drive us around" is the answer to "why do cars exist?" The function of something is not the explanation for it's existence. Water does not exist BECAUSE we drink it. Ergo, individuality does not exist BECAUSE it "leads to curiosity... nd growth".

Kerrie was that the answer you were looking for?

Kerrie: Bingo

If this was the "correct" answer, then the question should have been, "What is good about individuality?" In adition, if there is one particular answer that Kerrie's "looking for" and that she already knows, then she should have simply stated it herself.

Don't mean to sound grouchy - sorry if it comes off that way but I can't put vocal tones into text. I guess a description of what I'm saying is no substitute for experiencing me saying it! :)

Zantra

Jun26-03, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Tiberius
But philosophic answers do not preclude a scientific understanding of what's happening. In fact, they need to fall in-line with the scientific model or else they are meaningless. If, by "philosophic" you mean "poetic", as in not using any technical words and phrasing things so they sound pretty, then I'd recommend looking at poetry. But Philosophy is supposed to be the love of wisdom. And wisdom includes understanding reality. Too many people are hung up on ANCIENT philosophy and refuse to mux science with it. When they do this they are engaging in archaic dialogue that does not advance true understanding and has no purpose except as artistic recreation (which isn't bad if you understand that this is what you're doing). There is one, and only one reason why we are individuals - and that is the reason I outlined before (plus or minus some particulars which had been dropped for simplicity's sake, or may be discovered in the future). I'll explain what I mean in other responses below...

You're insinuating that I don't have the scientific understanding of what makes us individuals. Sure, I could say that it's our genetic compositions in combination with surrounding environmental and evolutionary factors that makes us a unique person.
But is that the philosophical answer? No it's the purely scientfic answer. You're trying too hard to blend science and philosophy, inasmuch that you're eliminating the philosophical meaning to it.

There is no such thing as a "philosophic reality" and a "scientific reality" - each equal and concurrent. There is ONE reality, and ONE thing that either IS or IS NOT happening. The scientific description of smelling a flower is the only correct and literally true one. But a scientific description is no substitute for actually experiencing what is being described. For that, you have to BE a human and BE SMELLING a flower. So, the particles do what they do, and if you're a human, you will know what that feels like.

My point Exactly. You cannot break an event down in scientific terms and still have it remain philosophical.

What do you mean when you say that science cannot "calculate the emotional side of things"? It can describe how and why emotions exist and how and why they function. But a description is not an experience and vice versa. This is not a limitation of science, but simply a matter of category by definition. Science is not designed to replicate experiences. But the question was "why are we individuals?" And the scientific answer is the only right one. If the question had been "What is it like to BE an individual?" then the answer would have had to have been a description of the experience in the language you're using.

This is where I think my point stands out. You insist that the only correct answer to an ambiguous question is a scientific one. And it is an ambiguous question. It all depends on your interpretation of that question. There are more answers to this question than science and philosophy. Religious scholars would attack this one with voracity. Why are we here? why are we individuals? It's all in the perspective of what's inferred by the question, and in this case I made a case for what I thought was her understanding of the question.

Here's the problem (and why purely "philosophic" answers bereft of any scientific understanding are ultimately unsatisfying to me). When you say "X because Y", this means that "Y" is the CAUSE of "X". So, what you're really saying here is...

"Needing something to define us as human beings CAUSES us to be unique."

But this is nonsense, and not a real answer to the question of "why are we individuals". You may as well make up a story about the magical pixie who came to the earth spreading individuality dust. It may be as entertaining, warm, and fuzzy, but it offers no further understanding and does not answer the question.

The reason for individuality is what it does? That's like saying that "because they drive us around" is the answer to "why do cars exist?" The function of something is not the explanation for it's existence. Water does not exist BECAUSE we drink it. Ergo, individuality does not exist BECAUSE it "leads to curiosity... nd growth".

If this was the "correct" answer, then the question should have been, "What is good about individuality?" In adition, if there is one particular answer that Kerrie's "looking for" and that she already knows, then she should have simply stated it herself.

Don't mean to sound grouchy - sorry if it comes off that way but I can't put vocal tones into text. I guess a description of what I'm saying is no substitute for experiencing me saying it! :)

I'll answer all these in one fell swoop. You say that the response lacks scientific understanding? or are you saying that I just didn't include a scientific perspective in my response? I could banter on endlessly about genetic composition, personality traits, evolution, hereditary influences ,etc,etc. Again it's as if you're upset that I didn't break down the composition of DNA for her to explain all the biological factors. Ya, I can do that, but that's not a philosophical response. Philosophy is human uderstanding of the world around us on our own terms. It's not exact, as science is. If a tree falls and no one is around, scientifically it still impacts the earth. It still creates sound waves which emenate around it, so therefore it still makes a sound. But does anybody really say that? No. I feel like you're basically looking to answer a philosophical question with a scientific answer.

Royce

Jun27-03, 09:10 AM

Every individual perceives the world around them differently and responses differently to it.
It has been my experience that children raised even in the closest and lovingest of families will take away comletely different impressions, memories and responses from outwardly identical situations. This is why identical twins who supposedly share identical DNA and very nearly identical enviroments have different personallities and develope different characters.
Identical twins raised seperately in completely different environments still lead remarkably similar lives and make similar choises even it the clothes that they perfer to wear. Yet, they are individuals in every sense of the word.
Genes not withstanding we see, hear, taste, feel, experience and respond to every situation differently. Why? It might go all the way down to the QM uncertainty principle effecting and affecting the way our senses respond to molecular stimuli and/or the way our neurons make their indiviual connections in the beginning which ma be totally random at first.
I can't remember what the exact figure is but something on the order of 99.8% of our DNA is common to all humans. The diversity of that .2% makes all the difference in that world and is what makes us unique. I find that remarkable and incomprhensable. Go figure.

Tiberius

Jun27-03, 09:55 AM

Zantra,

I'm not claiming you have no scientific understanding. I don't know you and nothing you stated previously indicated any lack of or incorrect science. What I said was that your answer did not address the scientific and should have.

"Why are we individuals?" is not a philosophic question (at least not without some other dressing around it setting it up as such). Your example of "Why are we here?" is somewhat ambiguous and very philosophic, but not "Why are we individuals?" This question is as plain as asking "Why do we sweat?" The question is one of functionality.

The reason we are individuals (as opposed to all being the same) IS because our neurons are unspecialized, interconnecting according to our experiences, which are all different. This is the one and only proper answer to that question, as far as can be determined at present.

Likewise, if one were to ask, "Why is the sky blue?" The right answer would be because of the properties of light, the atmosphere, and the blue portion of the spectrum. But then if you asked, "Why does the universe exist in that fashion in the first place?" then you're getting into philosophy.

Where there is a scientific understanding of a phenomenon, there is no purpose or place for a philosophic question about it. That would be like trying to philosophize about how and why your coffee machine works without ever discussing the inner operation of its components - meaningless. Only once you get to questions of ultimate truth and purpose, which are on the edge of our knowledge does epistemological philosophy become relevant. Of course, as I mentioned before, other areas of philosophy that are not epistemological may be relevant throughout.

So, "Why are we individuals" is a scientific question with a scientific answer because it relates to phenomenon which can be observed and studied and which we have physical explanations of. It is also not asking anything about meaning, purpose, or the like, but simply asking a structural question.

You said that there were all sorts of answers that pertain to science, philosophy, religion, etc. If you take a Christian example, someone might say, "We are individuals because God loves variety and wants us all to love him as ourselves and not because we were stamped out of a cookie cutter." However, technically - this is NOT an answer to "Why are we individuals?" This is an answer to "Why does the universe function in such a way that it brings about individuals?" In other words, it is the "why" that comes after the scientific answer (not concurrent with or an option to).

The good news is that no matter what we discover scientifically in the future, there will always be a "why" to that - and there will be the place for philosophy.

Kerrie

Jun27-03, 11:22 AM

"Why are we individuals?" is not a philosophic question

A matter of your opinion, thus it IS a philosophical question...

The reason we are individuals (as opposed to all being the same) IS because our neurons are unspecialized, interconnecting according to our experiences, which are all different. This is the one and only proper answer to that question, as far as can be determined at present.

A scientific answer to a philosophical question...okay, if you choose to answer it that way, that's your choice...

Honestly I don't believe there is any "right" answer to this question yet because there is much more to learn about why our existence is...

If this was the "correct" answer, then the question should have been, "What is good about individuality?"

Again, a matter of your opinion...

In adition, if there is one particular answer that Kerrie's "looking for" and that she already knows, then she should have simply stated it herself.

I am not looking for any answers, I am seeking to know what others think...

In this forum, it's okay to be philosophical, I think that many people who travel along the scientific path forget that it's okay to wonder...thus we have many members trying to answer philosophical questions with scientific answers...Remember...

SCIENCE IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS... [;)]

Zero

Jun27-03, 11:37 AM

I think that when Kerrie asks a question like this, she is looking at it from a very '5 year old' sort of perspective, and those are the sort of answers she is looking for.

Tiberius

Jun27-03, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
A matter of your opinion, thus it IS a philosophical question...

Well then everything is a philosophical question. If I ask how many quarters are in a dollar I guess 4 is just my opinion.

Honestly I don't believe there is any "right" answer to this question yet because there is much more to learn about why our existence is...

You didn't ask "why our existence is". You asked "Why are we individuals" - completely different. But I guess that's just my opinion too, therefore there's no reason for people to ever communicate with anyone else because it will all just be meaningless opinions bouncing around.

I am not looking for any answers, I am seeking to know what others think...

Zantra: Kerrie was that the answer you were looking for?

Kerrie: Bingo *wink*

When he gets "bingo" and I get "that's just your opinion" then you are looking for a particular pre-decided answer. Please don't lie.

In this forum, it's okay to be philosophical, I think that many people who travel along the scientific path forget that it's okay to wonder...thus we have many members trying to answer philosophical questions with scientific answers...Remember...

SCIENCE IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS... [;)] [/B]

So is philosophy. There is not a "scientific path" and a "philosophic path". The two are compatible, or should be. I am being philosophic, but the philosophic should include scientific conclusions of the day. What Zantra is doing is not philosophy - it's nostalgic philosophic-sounding lingo that sounds pretty but has no bearing on reality and offers no new insight. It's fine if one does this for the same reasons as one does poetry. But I love philosophy too much to use it in such a minimalist way. Philosophy is functional and has a purpose other than entertainment. Philosophy should attempt to find truth and that cannot be done while ignoring science and trying to philosophically address inherently scientific questions. "What is the meaning of life" is a philosophic question - "what does a lung do" and "why are we individuals" is not.

Zero

Jun27-03, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I think that when Kerrie asks a question like this, she is looking at it from a very '5 year old' sort of perspective, and those are the sort of answers she is looking for.

This is the Philosophy Board...she's looking for you to look at things with a sort of childlike sense of wonder, instead of cold hard scientific facts. In teh Other Sciences forum, you give mechanistic answers. Here, you go for the more speculative answers.

Kerrie

Jun27-03, 11:55 AM

my "opinion" of your remarks tiberius, is that you need to not get so emotional about what others have to say...you don't mean to sound grouchy, but your choice of words leads others to believe that you are in repsonse to this topic...

this is a thread about other's opinions on why we are individuals...there is no right answer to it and i say that because as you truthfully stated, philosophy and science are both works in progress

i never asked for a scientific answer, you chose to supply it, and you should handle what others have to say about it...if you want to discuss facts and purely scientific answers, i would suggest you post elsewhere...

When he gets "bingo" and I get "that's just your opinion" then you are looking for a particular pre-decided answer. Please don't lie.
yes, he did get my "bingo" because he understands the context of what i am asking because this IS a philosophy forum...

Philosophy is functional and has a purpose other than entertainment. Philosophy should attempt to find truth and that cannot be done while ignoring science and trying to philosophically address inherently scientific questions. "What is the meaning of life" is a philosophic question - "what does a lung do" and "why are we individuals" is not.

again, a matter of opinion...you can answer my question scientifically, but not philosophically...

Fliption

Jun27-03, 12:16 PM

Wow. All this bantering from Tiberius on what I consider to be a simple semantic issue and yet real issues over in the "clarifications of QM" remain unaddressed.

I see philosophy as answering different types of questions. And it does so with all the information it can obtain as its tools. This includes scientific information. So science answers HOW it is possible that we are individuals. Not "why". Usually a "why" question has a higher probability of being a philosophical question. Another strong hint for you is that this is the philosophy forum [;)]. So it follows that "why do we sweat?" is different from "how do we sweat?". The first one is asking for purpose/functionality. The 2nd is asking for the scientific explanation for how it works. So I agree that this question for sweat is exactly the same as the question that Kerrie has posed. Why are we individuals is not asking for "how it works" ie genetics etc etc. It is asking for purpose/functionality.

Also, kerrie is not looking for a specific answer, just as she said. But she is looking to see that the right question is being addressed as some people forget which forum they're in. Please note the difference. And certainly try to note it before you call someone a liar.

Zantra

Jun27-03, 12:33 PM

What Zantra is doing is not philosophy - it's nostalgic philosophic-sounding lingo that sounds pretty but has no bearing on reality and offers no new insight. It's fine if one does this for the same reasons as one does poetry. But I love philosophy too much to use it in such a minimalist way. Philosophy is functional and has a purpose other than entertainment. Philosophy should attempt to find truth and that cannot be done while ignoring science and trying to philosophically address inherently scientific questions. "What is the meaning of life" is a philosophic question - "what does a lung do" and "why are we individuals" is not. [/B]

I understand where you're coming from, and I believe this is just a difference of opinion on philisophical approaches. I agree that Philosophy is the search for truth and understanding, as is science. But Philosophy is introspective where science is not. You say that the question is a scienctific one, but I still don't see how "what does a lung do" can be compared to "why are we individuals? Apples and oranges. [/Qoute]

Zero

Jun27-03, 02:13 PM

Some people are trying to make the point that a 'why' question can have two meanings. One is 'by what process does this occur?' and teh other is 'what purpose does it have'...I don't think physical-based questions have to have a 'purpose' answer.

Zantra

Jun27-03, 02:37 PM

Tiberius

Jun27-03, 04:27 PM

Yes, someone DID forget which forum they were in. For example, if I ever wanted to ask, "Why is the moon sometimes full and sometimes not?" I would not post it in the philosophy section. And whether it's "why do we sweat" or "how do we sweat" - I wouldn't expect that to be in the philosophy section either.

Again, speculation is fun and a wonderful thing, but there's no use speculating about physical matters that have a physical reason behind them that's already understood.

Now, I'm not trying to be a board-police or anything - I don't care if it's out of place or not. But when someone asks a question, and there is plainly a scientific answer to it - that should be taken into account, even in philosophy and even in a philosophy forum. Proper philosophy does not ignore scientific understanding - it adds to it. So, my scientific response to the question can be seen as PART OF philosophy - a starting point or a springboard for deeper questions of meaning - but such SHOULD be acknowledged so I stand by the appropriateness of posting it on this thread.

I'm actually not emotional about this at all - I find it very entertaining to talk about (which is why I'm here). But there's no way philosophy is going to have any meaning, usefulness, or relevancy without acknowledging what scientific consensus of the day suggests and working from there. Otherwise it's just poetry and pretty-talk (which is fine but philosophy can be so much more).

Fliption:
It appeared that the QM post had gone off on a tangent with other people talking about other things. If there was something else asked of me I'll take another look at it.

Tiberius

Jun27-03, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
I understand where you're coming from, and I believe this is just a difference of opinion on philisophical approaches. I agree that Philosophy is the search for truth and understanding, as is science. But Philosophy is introspective where science is not. You say that the question is a scienctific one, but I still don't see how "what does a lung do" can be compared to "why are we individuals? Apples and oranges. [/Qoute]

Well I respect your take on that. But I honestly can't see the difference. Both are a question of body function. I suppose if you ignore everything learned about the brain in the last two centuries you could talk about it in terms of "souls" or something, but what would be the point and what could possibly get answered that way? It might have been better to just say "lets talk about individuality". I'm not trying to split semantic hairs here as Fliption suggested, but I'm being forced to because people are parsing out science and philosophy and trying to make the thread a "no science" zone. My point is that this would also by default make it an "anti-philosophy" zone.

Let me put it to you this way. The government wants to know "why are we individuals" and wants to grant funds toward answering that question. I go to them an give my "neuron specialization" answer and you give them your "because it makes us special" answer and see who gets the funds for further exploration of the issue. On the other hand, if the government (for some reason) wanted to know what the meaning of life was, then a completely philosophical approach would probably get the funds. Now, I know there's lots of ways to look at an issue, but this should at least show that this particular question itself has, at its core, a physiological component that MUST be addressed in any meaningful search for the answer. To not do so just because technical-sounding lingo makes us uncomfortable betrays everything philosophy has been about since it's beginning.

Tiberius

Jun27-03, 04:57 PM

Zero:

I think that when Kerrie asks a question like this, she is looking at it from a very '5 year old' sort of perspective, and those are the sort of answers she is looking for.

I'm sorry, I'm not a 5 year old. Perhaps she should ask a 5 year old. I'm not trying to be a wise-***, but that's not really what philosophy is - that's "musings". I think the Hallmark store in the mall has a lot of that kind of stuff in it. Sorry if I misunderstood her approach.

This is the Philosophy Board...she's looking for you to look at things with a sort of childlike sense of wonder, instead of cold hard scientific facts. In teh Other Sciences forum, you give mechanistic answers. Here, you go for the more speculative answers.

Wrong.

I look at science with a sense of wonder and awe because the things we discover in science, and how we do it, are awe inspiring. I'm saddened when I hear people describe science as "cold and hard".

Furthermore, science is a branch of philosophy, which is why there's a section for it on a science website. And, as I've said now many times, modern philosophy of any meaning must take the conclusions of science in consideration when speculating. Speculation while ignoring science is redundant and likely irrelevant. Instead, philosophy should act to take what we know scientifically (your cold hard facts), and speculate FROM THAT POINT, bringing together the facts to form a whole perspective. From that, finding ways to cope with our world and find meaning in our lives.

But philosophy that is just an excuse to ignore science and say fluffy things that sound pretty is not philosophy at all. The philosophy of Plato and Socrates was analytic. It was exploratory. It sought to glean new insights to our existance. And, in doing so, it embraced the physical understanding of the natural world, as it was known in its time.

Zantra

Jun27-03, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Tiberius
Well I respect your take on that. But I honestly can't see the difference. Both are a question of body function. I suppose if you ignore everything learned about the brain in the last two centuries you could talk about it in terms of "souls" or something, but what would be the point and what could possibly get answered that way? It might have been better to just say "lets talk about individuality". I'm not trying to split semantic hairs here as Fliption suggested, but I'm being forced to because people are parsing out science and philosophy and trying to make the thread a "no science" zone. My point is that this would also by default make it an "anti-philosophy" zone.

Let me put it to you this way. The government wants to know "why are we individuals" and wants to grant funds toward answering that question. I go to them an give my "neuron specialization" answer and you give them your "because it makes us special" answer and see who gets the funds for further exploration of the issue. On the other hand, if the government (for some reason) wanted to know what the meaning of life was, then a completely philosophical approach would probably get the funds. Now, I know there's lots of ways to look at an issue, but this should at least show that this particular question itself has, at its core, a physiological component that MUST be addressed in any meaningful search for the answer. To not do so just because technical-sounding lingo makes us uncomfortable betrays everything philosophy has been about since it's beginning.

I think we're past splitting hairs. We're down to the quark level at this point. But again it's all about perspective of the understanding of the question. Sure, if you take the question at face value, then yes a straight-forward scientific answer will do. I choose to look beyond that to a deeper meaning. And for me the question "why are we individuals?" is an extension of the question "what is the meaning of life?" It can be thought of as an inferrence of the meaning of life. And to answer that question you'd have to go back a few billion years to the point where microscopic goo was forming life. I admit I'm extending the question out a bit, but That is the path that leads to my answer. I don't really see this topic going anywhere at this point, it's just semantics, so I'll just leave it at this:

Philosophy has to take science into account, but it is not the foundation of it. It addresses issues which science cannot or won't.
Those are just my "mussings", and opinions.

Tiberius

Jun27-03, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
...I admit I'm extending the question out a bit, but That is the path that leads to my answer...

That's completely ok with me if you want to do that. But I don't appreciate all the posts here suggesting my mentioning of the physical answers to the question were somehow out of place or not-to-be-spoken-of in a philosophy thread. When someone starts a thread with one simple sentence and nothing more, they should expect all sorts of takes on it (and even cross assessment between those takes).

Philosophy has to take science into account, but it is not the foundation of it. It addresses issues which science cannot or won't.

I completely agree 100%.
:)

Kerrie

Jun27-03, 09:09 PM

tiberius,
i find it ironic that you use the yoda avatar, but have such an attitude...yoda was a meek character..

Again, speculation is fun and a wonderful thing, but there's no use speculating about physical matters that have a physical reason behind them that's already understood.

what does that have to do with my harmless question of why are we individuals?

Now, I'm not trying to be a board-police or anything

that's exactly what you are doing...leave that to the mentor of this forum, which is me...

I'm actually not emotional about this at all - I find it very entertaining to talk about (which is why I'm here). But there's no way philosophy is going to have any meaning, usefulness, or relevancy without acknowledging what scientific consensus of the day suggests and working from there. Otherwise it's just poetry and pretty-talk (which is fine but philosophy can be so much more).

our current scientific understanding doesn't necessarily answer all questions we ask...i think you need to remember that...

I don't appreciate all the posts here suggesting my mentioning of the physical answers to the question were somehow out of place or not-to-be-spoken-of in a philosophy thread.

perhaps you need to re-word what you are really trying to say, as you have a tone that is rubbing a few of us the wrong way...

Speculation while ignoring science is redundant and likely irrelevant.

again, a matter of your opinion...i asked this question with the intent of having the reader reach deeper within them and give a philosophical reason-their philosophy...not to have someone toss an attitude of ridicule towards their opinions...physicsforums.com does not endorse such an attitude...

Iacchus32

Jun28-03, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Some people are trying to make the point that a 'why' question can have two meanings. One is 'by what process does this occur?' and teh other is 'what purpose does it have'...I don't think physical-based questions have to have a 'purpose' answer. Really? When an "individual" comes up with an idea, through the process of "abstract thought," the mechanics (i.e., what process) aren't usually addressed until after the idea is proposed (what purpose). Meaning something doesn't arise out of nothing, not without a design or intent ... even if that design only entails "reaching further" beyond our "current ability" to reach. In other words the act of "reaching" is none other than an act of intent, and implies also that evolution has a "sense of purpose."

For without purpose we would have no being, and without being there would be "nothing" to observe. So I personally choose to "worship" (have my being) from the "abstract wonder" of things.

M. Gaspar

Jun28-03, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
...perhaps you need to re-word what you are really trying to say, as you have a tone that is rubbing a few of us the wrong way...
As one who was "rubbed the wrong way" on another thread -- then engaged with others in a Tiberius Bashing Party...let me say where I am on the subject at the moment.

Tiberius serves a purpose -- he certainly serves MY purpose for participating here, which is to clear up any fuzzy thinking...or accept that I'm as focused as I'm going to get.

I have to tell you, that he has sent me into a bit of a tailspin ...which I trust I'll pull out of over time.

You see in my world -- that is, among the people in my life (not just in my head) I'm held in high regard. In this place, I'm a borderline IDIOT! (I have occasionally wondered if idiots know that they're idiots...and apparently, we do!)

In "my world" I'm Tiberius...and it's hard to be humble. Yet, I've served the purpose of getting people to be more rigorous in their thinking.

Perhaps others are here to "see themselves talk" then be patted on the head. I'm here to be "slapped out of my hysteria"!

I've been following this thread, and all I detect from Tiberius here is an attempt to make a contribution. Perhaps it is because I have no "investment" in this topic -- or that he hasn't called anyone a "mystic" -- but I no longer see the "attitude"...just the information.

So I trust he will not be squelched by those of us who get our feelings hurt while we "search for truth" in the briar patch of these threads.

And, to stay "on topic"...guess that's what makes us "individuals".

again, a matter of your opinion...i asked this question with the intent of having the reader reach deeper within them and give a philosophical reason-their philosophy...not to have someone toss an attitude of ridicule towards their opinions...physicsforums.com does not endorse such an attitude... [/B][/QUOTE]

Zantra

Jun28-03, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
As one who was "rubbed the wrong way" on another thread -- then engaged with others in a Tiberius Bashing Party...let me say where I am on the subject at the moment.

Tiberius serves a purpose -- he certainly serves MY purpose for participating here, which is to clear up any fuzzy thinking...or accept that I'm as focused as I'm going to get.

I have to tell you, that he has sent me into a bit of a tailspin ...which I trust I'll pull out of over time.

You see in my world -- that is, among the people in my life (not just in my head) I'm held in high regard. In this place, I'm a borderline IDIOT! (I have occasionally wondered if idiots know that they're idiots...and apparently, we do!)

In "my world" I'm Tiberius...and it's hard to be humble. Yet, I've served the purpose of getting people to be more rigorous in their thinking.

Perhaps others are here to "see themselves talk" then be patted on the head. I'm here to be "slapped out of my hysteria"!

I've been following this thread, and all I detect from Tiberius here is an attempt to make a contribution. Perhaps it is because I have no "investment" in this topic -- or that he hasn't called anyone a "mystic" -- but I no longer see the "attitude"...just the information.

So I trust he will not be squelched by those of us who get our feelings hurt while we "search for truth" in the briar patch of these threads.

And, to stay "on topic"...guess that's what makes us "individuals".

again, a matter of your opinion...i asked this question with the intent of having the reader reach deeper within them and give a philosophical reason-their philosophy...not to have someone toss an attitude of ridicule towards their opinions...physicsforums.com does not endorse such an attitude...

Me personally, I come to this board to:
1.learn
2.reflect
3.pose ideas and question that may warrant some thought for me.

As for our debate on this topic, I would say that I agree with his view to a point, but beyond that it's just a matter of opinion. I can say I'm the Tiberius among certain circles of friends, but among others as peers, as I tend to seek out equally if not more intelligent people, because I see it as an opportunity to grow. But I have a wide range of people I consider to be friends.

I don't pretend to be egotistical. As several have pointed out, there are many mental giants on this board, and I'm sure they could no doubt make mincemeat out of me[;)] No matter how good you are, there's always someone better. But there are certain characteristics among highly intelligent people, one of which is egotism. And if you get enough big egos in one room, you breed competition, and inevitably feelings get hurt. For myself, I concede that Tiberius had some valid points(which I believe I did in an earlier post) Again, I can't speak for others, but I believe Tiberius has helped me to better define for me a subject that I admit I hadn't given a ton of thought until this point in my life.

And I quote:

"Do not compare yourself to others, for always there will be persons greater and lesser than you"

-Maximus

Ivan Seeking

Jun28-03, 08:48 AM

It seems to me that this whole discussion was almost resolved, but that everyone kept dancing all around the problem. In addition to many things said that I agree with, on both sides of this issue, it seems to me that what has been ignored is the implicit argument made by Tiberius. If I have read all of this correctly, Tiberius is arguing that there is no purpose to life. Granted, two points of view can be found if we assume that life has purpose. But, just as Tiberius apparently fails to recognize this implicit philosophical argument within his position, I did cringe at what sounded to me like fundamentally inconsistent logic from Zantra.

Tiberius, I for one found your explanation most interesting and personality building; [:D]. However, is it your philosophical position that God and philosophical purpose are only mental constructs? If so, you couldn’t possibly relate to the other points of view. But neither can you logically invalidate alternative points that are logically consistent, and that the premise of which does not violate established scientific facts. Surely you don’t mean to argue that science has proven that life has no other purpose but to exist?

Kerrie

Jun28-03, 09:58 AM

Surely you don’t mean to argue that science has proven that life has no other purpose but to exist?

i think this is a hope that most of us have...which has some connection to my question of why are we individuals...

M. Gaspar~please re-read my comment below:

again, a matter of your opinion...i asked this question with the intent of having the reader reach deeper within them and give a philosophical reason-their philosophy...not to have someone toss an attitude of ridicule towards their opinions...physicsforums.com does not endorse such an attitude...

not the opinion itself i am pointing out, but the attitude behind it...

M. Gaspar

Jun28-03, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
M. Gaspar~please re-read my comment below:

...not the opinion itself i am pointing out, but the attitude behind it...

I have spent the last three days immersed in the subject of his "attitude" -- and my reaction to it -- and have done a complete 180 in the process !

Not only do I find FINALLY find his attitude "acceptable"...I find it --periodically -- unavoidable .

Who among us does not get exasperated with people who just don't "get it"...but pretend they do? Let this person cast the first stone at Tiberius.

Meanwhile, I'm picking up the 10-or-so I've left behind on another thread ...to perhaps build a little shrine to uncompromised reason.

Iacchus32

Jun28-03, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Kerrie
i think this is a hope that most of us have...which has some connection to my question of why are we individuals...

M. Gaspar~please re-read my comment below:

not the opinion itself i am pointing out, but the attitude behind it... Well which is more important? The fact that life exists and we're all participants? Or, the "observed" fact that life exists? Indeed it seems like Mother Nature pretty much had the whole thing down pat long before science ever came along.

Does it really behoove us to look at everything "objectively" down to the "nth degree?" Especially since we were mythological creatures in the first place?

Zero

Jun28-03, 12:45 PM

It is one thing to be philosophical...it is another thing entirely to spout complete nonsense in the attempt to feign depth.

M. Gaspar

Jun28-03, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I have spent the last three days immersed in the subject of his "attitude" -- and my reaction to it -- and have done a complete 180 in the process !

Not only do I find FINALLY find his attitude "acceptable"...I find it --periodically -- unavoidable .

Who among us does not get exasperated with people who just don't "get it"...but pretend they do? Let this person cast the first stone at Tiberius.

Meanwhile, I'm picking up the 10-or-so I've left behind on another thread ...to perhaps build a little shrine to uncompromised reason.

Now I'm reduced to responding to MYSELF!

M. Gaspar:

I think it's your "attitude" that's showing now. I just want to remind you -- while we're on the subject of "individuals" -- that we are each making our way on our respective paths.

We each have different perspectives, different interests and different capacities...and we can each make a contribution to the whole.

The only way we will NOT make a contribution is if we are STOPPED by others ...or our own insecurities

This is why -- IMO -- we should each be about "empowering" one another to self-express ...without coming down too hard on them if their ideas seem half-baked.

Your last post seems to be giving license to those who are better informed or more cerebrally endowed to point out others' shortcomings with impunity.

I agree with those who believe that there is "more" to life than that which can be "observed" ...that there is -- or at least MAY be -- a "spiritual" component that MAY be "evolving"...and that it MAY be that the acquisition of COMPASSION is the measure of the evolution of a soul.

"We are what we DO" is your signature for a reason: because we can choose to DO something other than what we FEEL like doing in the moment...which means we can ACT with compassion even when we're feeling sorta smug.

But even here I'm going to "give one up for Tiberius" [6)] because, in my opinion, he has already modulated his style.

And this is the LAST THING I intend to say about Tiberius in this lifetime!

And please forgive me, Kerrie, for using this thread to "get complete".

Iacchus32

Jun28-03, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Zero
It is one thing to be philosophical...it is another thing entirely to spout complete nonsense in the attempt to feign depth. You just don't get it do you? No matter how hard we try, we will never be able to break free from our "subjective shells."

What does that mean? We always have, and always will be, "creatures of faith."

What was that you say? The emperor has no clothes? ... By God! [;)]

M. Gaspar

Jun28-03, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
..We always have, and always will be, "creatures of faith."

I'd rather be known as a "creature of speculations". [a)]

Iacchus32

Jun28-03, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I'd rather be known as a "creature of speculations". [a)] Hey I don't have a problem with science per se', I just think it's about time it realized that humanity has "a soul."

Zantra

Jun28-03, 03:42 PM

I'll admit that my initial explanation had not bearing in logic, and that it was ineed almost "poetic". Of course I never expected it to go on for 4 pages either.lol. I was being intuitive, and gave Kerrie the answer I thought she was looking for. I never said it was the logical or ultimate answer. If you read back, several people posted more logical, and consistent explanations of why we are individuals, and that did not satisfy her.

Let's then put it to rest then, shall we? Tiberius argues that the question has to be based alone on fact and scientific principle, and if you start from a scientfic understanding that you have to concede that we are not individual due to fate, or any type of "deeper meaning" He is correct. It wasn't my intention for 1 sentence to evolve into a discussion of the entire foundation and principles of Philosophy, And for such an argument I'm not well equipped.

However I'm not quite sure what you mean by "inconsistent logic" Basically my main argument was to the interpretation of the question. What did I do? I used my imagination, tried to look at the question from the perpective of what I thought Kerrie was, and that's what came out.

All of Tiberius assertions were correct. However humans can't be satisfied with "just because" We seek a deeper, spiritual understanding, and to accept less is to loose hope. It goes to the very foundation of our personalities and deeper believes. There are religious intonnations even in Philosophy. To basically insinuate that there's no god is to invite chaos among the vast population, of which approximately 89 percent (not absolutely sure on that figure) believe in a higher power.

M. Gaspar

Jun28-03, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Hey I don't have a problem with science per se', I just think it's about time it realized that humanity has "a soul."
It ain't gonna happen. Even "consciousness" -- which surely exists -- is eschewed by hard-core materialists.

If it can't be detected, measured, tested, predicted and proven ...forget about it!

But I think we're off topic...so I'm going to unsubscribe and find another.

Royce

Jun30-03, 08:34 AM

If science were a complete system and all that is knowable was known completely then I would have to agree with Tiberius et al. Science however is not complete.

Science got where it is today by asking and speculating about the unknown and the testing the various hypotheses to see it it matched observation.

Philosophy, IMO, is where we do this asking and speculating, whether it be poetically put, based in mystism or spiritually. This is the Philosophy Forum.
Whether one is a mental giant or a modest thinker is totally irrelevant. If one has the mental where-with-all to ask a question and speculate about an answer s/he belongs here.

If their logic is not sound and in error then that error should be pointed out to them; but, logic does not, cannot and will not ever concern itself about the varifiablity of a statement or it relation to reality. Logic only addresses the method and soundness of reasoning.
That one may be an arrogant egotistical mental giant with no patients or toleance with the ramblings of lesser mortals or a street sweeper idlely musing over some obscure question in his mind, should make no difference here. None of us KNOW, we all assume and speculate and that is why we are here and what IMHO is what this forum is all about. It is also what this thread is about. Why are there overbearing intolerant people and then wonderful, patient, understanding saints like myself? [:D]

Zantra

Jun30-03, 09:39 AM

Humanity doesn't have a soul eh? Prove it! But of course first you have to define it, because "soul" has many connotations. People take abstract terms such as "soul" and poetic descriptions and label them mysticism because it's an abstract term that they can't logically define.

While I may not be a "mental giant" (relatively in comparison to this board), I stand by my stance there there is a humanistic side of things based in emotion that science cannot calculate or define. From the purely scientific perspective things like love, empathy, intuition, and jealousy are incalculable. And I challenge anyone to define these terms mathmatically. But that is my point, and the whole point of this post. And some would say that these things have no place in philosophy. Well I say without these things there would be no philosophy. Yes, I'm speaking of CURIOSITY. Because without it, there would be no discovery. And I hate to break it to ya folks, but however people want to label it, it is still a human emotion.

Philosophy has to use human emotion as a guide or it flounders at the very outset.To illustrate my point, Tell me how much you love your parents. Give me a figure, a number. I want quantitative logic.

I did admit that I was shown a different point of view and another way of understanding philosophy, but that doesn't mean I'm backing off the premise that philosophy is not steeped wholly in logic. The very question "why are we individuals?" is an illogical one. We just are because that is the way things are. That's the wholly scientific and completely uninspiring answer.

Now lets pose a scenario. You're searching for a deeper meaning, seeking truth and understanding of self, so you ask "why are we individuals?" One person tells you "Because the uniqueness is makes us who we are" and another one says "you just are.. deal with numnuts"..

Now which one would you want to hear ?

EDIT: I know I'm fighting a loosing battle, but I just love a challenge

Tiberius

Jun30-03, 03:08 PM

Kerri,

1) You said you thought I was complaining about the relevancy of the topic to the forum. This is incorrect. If you go back and reread the order of the posts you will find that I never once stated anything about whether or not this topic was in the right place, until others said that MY physiological explanation does not belong in the philosophy section. In Defence of, and in response to the claim that I had "forgotten what forum I was in", I said that the question is a material one and so it was not I who had forgotten. This is the first time, and the only comments I made in this regard were in response to being accused of ME not being in the right forum.

2) What do you mean by "attitude"? How am I to phrase the assersions that I made? I submit that there was no possible way to make the claims that I did on this thread in a way that wouldn't get me accused of having an attitude. If you can find some incident where I called someone a name or attacked them personally on this thread then I'd be suprised. Otherwise, I think this is just a case of not liking the position I am taking and taking it personally that I disagree, and I can't do anything about that. Everything I have stated has been about the topic and in response to comments directed at me. These responses have been plainly factual and addressed the ideas - not the people.

3) Science isn't complete. But what there is of it should be acknowledged in philosophy - and there is a lot of it concerning "why we are individuals". Then, from that point, further speculation would be highly entertaining to read. That is my point in a nutshell and my response to the claim that my scientific explanation is out of place on this thread. I don't see what is so controversial or threatening about that, or what should invoke the attitude that claims of scientific completness have been made. That is a "straw man" argument and therefore irrelevant.

I would make a comment here about not meaning to be rude, but I tried that earlier in this thread and it was answered with "but you are" so I'll not waste time with that again.

Tiberius

Jun30-03, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It seems to me that this whole discussion was almost resolved, but that everyone kept dancing all around the problem. In addition to many things said that I agree with, on both sides of this issue, it seems to me that what has been ignored is the implicit argument made by Tiberius. If I have read all of this correctly, Tiberius is arguing that there is no purpose to life. Granted, two points of view can be found if we assume that life has purpose. But, just as Tiberius apparently fails to recognize this implicit philosophical argument within his position, I did cringe at what sounded to me like fundamentally inconsistent logic from Zantra.

Tiberius, I for one found your explanation most interesting and personality building; [:D]. However, is it your philosophical position that God and philosophical purpose are only mental constructs? If so, you couldn’t possibly relate to the other points of view. But neither can you logically invalidate alternative points that are logically consistent, and that the premise of which does not violate established scientific facts. Surely you don’t mean to argue that science has proven that life has no other purpose but to exist?

Wow, now that's an interesting reponse Ivan, though I'm not sure how on-topic we are anymore. I'll try to answer though because I think some of what you summarized needs addressing...

...it seems to me that what has been ignored is the implicit argument made by Tiberius. If I have read all of this correctly, Tiberius is arguing that there is no purpose to life. Granted, two points of view can be found if we assume that life has purpose. But, just as Tiberius apparently fails to recognize this implicit philosophical argument within his position, I did cringe at what sounded to me like fundamentally inconsistent logic from Zantra.

I'm not sure I saw anything illogical from Zantra - just not really addressing the question in a way I thought was philosophically constructive. But you say here that, implicit in my argument, is that life has no purpose. Well, I have two responses to this...

1) You Granted that "the two points of view can be found if we assume that life has a purpose". Since you granted this, I will claim it! Yes, indeed, I see no implication that a physical explanation robs life of purpose. Even in the more traditional ideas of life purpose, such as the religious, all of the physical explanations would no doubt be a part of god's creation (or whatever myths are appropriate to the religion of the day). So, the natural does not rule out the supernatural because the supernatural is alleged to exist "outside" and "in addition to" the natural.

2) But of course, most have probably figured out that I am a naturalist (or materialist as some call it). But my personal beliefs on the supernatural do not happen to be held up or supported in any way by the physical understanding of brain function. I have other reasons for these beliefs. So I stand by #1, that the supernatural is still a possibility if looking at the physicality of the brain. However, even in MY view, I do not see life as "lacking purpose". In fact, I see great meaning and purpose to life. But (and I believe this is good news), the idea that there seems to be no "objective" or "outside" purpose and meaning to life means that we, as individuals, are free to CHOOSE our own meaning in life. I decide what the meaning of MY life will be, and you YOURS. To me, this is much superior to being handed our purpose on a platter. But this is all my personal preference. To others the idea may seem frightening, but I don't think that need be the case.

Tiberius, I for one found your explanation most interesting and personality building; [:D]. However, is it your philosophical position that God and philosophical purpose are only mental constructs?

God - probably.
Philosophical Purpose - yes.
But "mental constructs" are important and meaningful to US, and since US is who we're talking about, then that's all that matters.

If so, you couldn’t possibly relate to the other points of view. But neither can you logically invalidate alternative points that are logically consistent, and that the premise of which does not violate established scientific facts. Surely you don’t mean to argue that science has proven that life has no other purpose but to exist?

I'm not sure why this is, but there seems to be a rampant, almost obsessive, tendancy for people to exclaim that I "Can't prove god doesn't exist", even though I never make such a claim.

True, science cannot, even in principle, EVER prove that the supernatural does not exist. But it can prove many things about the natural. I, for philosophic reasons (not scientific), have determined that it is not rational to hold a belief in something for which you have no evidence. And, that the degree of belief in a proposition should be proportionate to the degree of physical evidence for that proposition. Therefore, no evidence FOR god means no belief IN god. Also, no evidence for NO GOD means no belief that there ISN'T a god.

Let me ask you, do you hold this belief: "there is NOT a quarter in Tiberius' pocket at this moment"?

What about this belief: "there IS a quarter in Tiberius' pocket at this moment"?

Same thing. I have no evidence. But, I can say that "I don't believe in god" because I don't hold that first belief. Furthermore, an "atheist" means "without theism", and "theism" is just a fancy word for "belief god DOES exist". So, being without the belief that god DOES exist, I am technically an atheist.

However, my main point in response to your question of purpose to life, is that I don't see how or why the supernatural need be the only possible source of purpose. To me, the two are separate and distinct. Supernatural? Possible but irrelevant. Purpose? Definitely.

Zantra

Jun30-03, 05:14 PM

I think this post got way off track, and would be much more at home in the objective vs subjective post.

Now the way in which I chose to view the question was still rooted in philosophy, it just lacked a more physical discription. I was thinking abstractly, though the more I thought about it, the more I sounded like I was launching into a a "snowflake" analogy, so I withdraw.

I'm a very logical person, but sometimes we need to hear poetry, not facts. We may know the facts, but sometimes the poetry reassures us.

Tiberius

Jun30-03, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
I think this post got way off track, and would be much more at home in the objective vs subjective post.

Now the way in which I chose to view the question was still rooted in philosophy, it just lacked a more physical discription. I was thinking abstractly, though the more I thought about it, the more I sounded like I was launching into a a "snowflake" analogy, so I withdraw.

I'm a very logical person, but sometimes we need to hear poetry, not facts. We may know the facts, but sometimes the poetry reassures us.

Sure, nothing wrong with that :)
I just wasn't aware that this was a call for reassurance. That being the case, then everything you said applies.

To get back on track, I think a philosophic look at "why we are individuals", speculating beyond the physiological, would be so vast a thing that you'd really have to come to terms and agreement on a LOT of other more primal beliefs before the answers to that would make sense between two people.

For example, one might talk about why "god made us individuals" and all of the purpose behind that, but then that answer would only be meaningful to those who believe in a god (and one of the sort described at that). Then there may be other "cosmic" reasons for why human beings are the way they are (spirits, starwars-like force, personna-created reality, etc), but each of those answers would face the same limitations.

Not only would the foundational belief systems have to be established before an answer to such a broad question be answerable, but it would also be helpful if the motivation to the question were stated. For example, is Kerri wanting to know what our "place is" in the universe, and she feels that asking why we are individuals might be a component of determining that? If so, then it would be very interesting to hear the philosophic line of reasoning connecting the concept of individuality to "our place in the universe".

I would venture to say, from my own philosophic perspective, that the "why" questions (the BIG "why" questions that is) are usually a sign of looking in the wrong place for answers. It has been my experience that we cannot ever really know for certain the very basis of existence itself. Such a thing is beyond our abilities as human beings to reliably determine. That is, unless some mystical claims to knowledge are ever proven to be objectively accurate - which could happen but unfortunately hasn't yet. That being the case, I believe that our best answers lie within ourself. If we want to know what our place is, we need only to look at our world and decide who and what we want to be, both s a people and as individuals. Whatever other "higher" things are going on (or not) doesn't really change who we are, what we value, what we find beautiful and good, and what sort of future we wish to build. Everything we need to determine that is within us and around us. All the speculation about otherworldly beings, motives, and purposes seems to me to be entertaining, but ultimately futile and irrelevant to the really important questions facing us.

PhysicsRocks88

Jun30-03, 06:45 PM

Zantra

Jun30-03, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Tiberius
Sure, nothing wrong with that :)
I just wasn't aware that this was a call for reassurance. That being the case, then everything you said applies.

That was an error on my part for not clarifying myself at the outset of all this.

Not only would the foundational belief systems have to be established before an answer to such a broad question be answerable, but it would also be helpful if the motivation to the question were stated. For example, is Kerri wanting to know what our "place is" in the universe, and she feels that asking why we are individuals might be a component of determining that? If so, then it would be very interesting to hear the philosophic line of reasoning connecting the concept of individuality to "our place in the universe".

If we go on what we factually know and the evidence that is afforded to us at this point in time, then we can say that we are the top of the food chain until we know otherwise. We are the masters of our own fates through free will, and that we grow and develop based on our own choices this, above all else, affects us the most. This is what leads us to be who we are. Through life experiences, and the more highly evolved a species is, the more choices they have available to them. So it would seem, until otherwise proven, the we as humans, have the most opportunity to become individuals through more growth and experience. Now it would be presumptious of us to assume that we are the most advanced in the universe, however we can't know either way, so for now we must assume that we are it. In which case, that puts us in the most favorable position. I've always been a big believer of controlling your own "destiny" as it were, so terms like luck, fate, and chance have no bearing on our lives. We are the masters of our own universe.

I would venture to say, from my own philosophic perspective, that the "why" questions (the BIG "why" questions that is) are usually a sign of looking in the wrong place for answers. It has been my experience that we cannot ever really know for certain the very basis of existence itself. Such a thing is beyond our abilities as human beings to reliably determine. That is, unless some mystical claims to knowledge are ever proven to be objectively accurate - which could happen but unfortunately hasn't yet. That being the case, I believe that our best answers lie within ourself. If we want to know what our place is, we need only to look at our world and decide who and what we want to be, both s a people and as individuals. Whatever other "higher" things are going on (or not) doesn't really change who we are, what we value, what we find beautiful and good, and what sort of future we wish to build. Everything we need to determine that is within us and around us. All the speculation about otherworldly beings, motives, and purposes seems to me to be entertaining, but ultimately futile and irrelevant to the really important questions facing us. [/B]

Again, going on that premise. If we look to ourselves, and our lives to define who we our, then that says that we are indeed the masters of our own lives, and only we can determine who we are, because we are the most directly responsible for the life that we have.

For a second I thought you were going to go off on some rant about solipsism...

M. Gaspar

Jun30-03, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Tiberius
To get back on track, I think a philosophic look at "why we are individuals", speculating beyond the physiological, would be so vast a thing that you'd really have to come to terms and agreement on a LOT of other more primal beliefs before the answers to that would make sense between two people.
So, are you saying that we should each establish our respective positions on what is "going on" with/within/or outside of the Universe before offering our "answer" to the question?

Then, we'd each be saying something like this: "I'm coming from a paradigm that holds that thus and such is true , and so within that context I believe that we are individuals because..."?

Or, are you saying that -- because of all the diverse perspectives -- our answers would be meaningful only to those who share a similiar paradigm ( preaching to the choir) while the rest of us couldn't care less...so why discuss it in the first place?

If it's the former, I'm game.

If it's the latter, I couldn't agree more.

For example, one might talk about why "god made us individuals" and all of the purpose behind that, but then that answer would only be meaningful to those who believe in a god (and one of the sort described at that). Then there may be other "cosmic" reasons for why human beings are the way they are (spirits, starwars-like force, personna-created reality, etc), but each of those answers would face the same limitations.
But who among us could keep from arguing against each others' basic premises (let alone get to their answers) ...arguing as if we were actually going to change somebody's mind!

Not only would the foundational belief systems have to be established before an answer to such a broad question be answerable, but it would also be helpful if the motivation to the question were stated. For example, is Kerri wanting to know what our "place is" in the universe, and she feels that asking why we are individuals might be a component of determining that? If so, then it would be very interesting to hear the philosophic line of reasoning connecting the concept of individuality to "our place in the universe".
Is this true? Are you "very interested" in hearing a "line of reasoning connecting the concept of individuality to our place [ or our FUNCTION?] in the Universe?"

And are you just as interested if you do not relate to the "foundational belief system"?

...It has been my experience that we cannot ever really know for certain the very basis of existence itself. Such a thing is beyond our abilities as human beings to reliably determine. That is, unless some mystical claims to knowledge are ever proven to be objectively accurate - which could happen but unfortunately hasn't yet. That being the case, I believe that our best answers lie within ourself. If we want to know what our place is, we need only to look at our world and decide who and what we want to be, both s a people and as individuals.
I agree completely. My paradigm does not hold that "God" gave me a "purpose" but that I get to choose my own. However, Tiberius, you and I would part company at what comes next: that once we choose our purpose, the natural forces of the non-physical Universe would align with our intentions and actions to create and direct us to "openings" for our purpose to unfold. (Oops. Sorry about that. My paradigm is showing.)

I once read somewhere that "The Meaning of Life is the Meaning We Give It" ...and this works for me.

Whatever other "higher" things are going on (or not) doesn't really change who we are, what we value, what we find beautiful and good, and what sort of future we wish to build. Everything we need to determine that is within us and around us. All the speculation about otherworldly beings, motives, and purposes seems to me to be entertaining, but ultimately futile and irrelevant to the really important questions facing us. [/B]
So, what ARE the "really important questions facing us"?

Dave

Jun30-03, 09:50 PM

Most people have distintly different genes and if that wasn't enough, we all have different enviormental experineces.

PhysicsRocks88

Jun30-03, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Dave
Most people have distintly different genes and if that wasn't enough, we all have different enviormental experineces.

This thread is a great example of what happens when someone (the original poster) asks such a dammed obvious question, and rather than thinking about it for even a second, they just post it randomly...

...ugh. I am happy that our genes are very different - I am still embarassed of much of my own species.

Dave

Jun30-03, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
...ugh. I am happy that our genes are very different - I am still embarassed of much of my own species.

Why? What do we do that you don't?

M. Gaspar

Jun30-03, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Tiberius
...So, the natural does not rule out the supernatural because the supernatural is alleged to exist "outside" and "in addition to" the natural.
Not according to my paradigm. IMO, there is NO "supernatural" because, whatever it is that is going on, this is NATURAL to the Universe...so does NOT "exist outside and in addition to" the natural.

...the idea that there seems to be no "objective" or "outside" purpose and meaning to life means that we, as individuals, are free to CHOOSE our own meaning in life. I decide what the meaning of MY life will be, and you YOURS. To me, this is much superior to being handed our purpose on a platter. But this is all my personal preference
I've already agreed with you on this in the above post. However, you said it so well here, I wanted to give it another airing.

M. Gaspar

Jun30-03, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Tiberius
... What do you mean by "attitude"? How am I to phrase the assersions that I made? I submit that there was no possible way to make the claims that I did on this thread in a way that wouldn't get me accused of having an attitude. If you can find some incident where I called someone a name or attacked them personally on this thread then I'd be suprised. Otherwise, I think this is just a case of not liking the position I am taking and taking it personally that I disagree, and I can't do anything about that. Everything I have stated has been about the topic and in response to comments directed at me. These responses have been plainly factual and addressed the ideas - not the people.
Hopefully, the subject of your "attitude" will be put to rest...
but not your attitude itself!

As I said in a prior post, one should not allow themselves to be squelched by others whose feelings get hurt when confronted by opposing views.

On the other hand, if you call me a "mystic" again, we're on!!

Zantra

Jun30-03, 10:43 PM

Iacchus32

Jul1-03, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
This thread is a great example of what happens when someone (the original poster) asks such a dammed obvious question, and rather than thinking about it for even a second, they just post it randomly...

...ugh. I am happy that our genes are very different - I am still embarassed of much of my own species. It's not so damned obvious when you take the "we" out of it and replace it with "what." I think this is what "we" have a problem with.

Just think of all the parts and intricate design that goes into building a high quality stereo receiver system. And yet that doesn't even begin to describe the quality of music which is broadcast over its speakers.

So, what's the difference between the music and the apparatus which reproduces it? [;)]

While as far as the difference between us as individuals is concerned, that would probably be best defined as the differences in our "taste of music."

Or, would one's "subjective" taste in music be inadmissable to science as well? ... That makes for a pretty bland world then, if one is not allowed to take into account one's "subjective experience."

Or, how about the "subjective experience" of a nice thick juicy steak? I bet you wouldn't want to give up that now would you!? [;)]

Hmm ... Which will it be? ... the red pill or the blue pill?

Tiberius

Jul1-03, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Zantra
That was an error on my part for not clarifying myself at the outset of all this.

No problem - it's been quite interesting :)

...Now it would be presumptious of us to assume that we are the most advanced in the universe, however we can't know either way, so for now we must assume that we are it. In which case, that puts us in the most favorable position. I've always been a big believer of controlling your own "destiny" as it were, so terms like luck, fate, and chance have no bearing on our lives. We are the masters of our own universe.

I'm not sure what it would matter if we were to discover some alien beings that had greater intelligence than ourselves. Are you suggesting we'd have to accept whatever purpose they'd want to suggest we had? It seems to me, that even then, we'd still be the ones to decide what our purpose would be in life, based on our needs and desires (assuming they don't subjugate us, which would suck). If, you mean other entities in a supernatural realm, then I still don't quite see a purpose to be had there. Even with an all powerful, all good creator, it seems to me that the idea of worship itself is immoral, and the idea of creating autonomous individuals, only to enforce your own meaning and purpose on them is evil. So, I would still expect a good god to want us to choose our own meaning and purpose.

eNtRopY

Jul1-03, 01:38 PM

Zantra

Jul1-03, 01:44 PM

I'm not sure what it would matter if we were to discover some alien beings that had greater intelligence than ourselves. Are you suggesting we'd have to accept whatever purpose they'd want to suggest we had? It seems to me, that even then, we'd still be the ones to decide what our purpose would be in life, based on our needs and desires (assuming they don't subjugate us, which would suck). If, you mean other entities in a supernatural realm, then I still don't quite see a purpose to be had there. Even with an all powerful, all good creator, it seems to me that the idea of worship itself is immoral, and the idea of creating autonomous individuals, only to enforce your own meaning and purpose on them is evil. So, I would still expect a good god to want us to choose our own meaning and purpose.

Whoah. I'm not saying that at all. If aliens came to us we'd first have to assess intent and where we stood in relation to them. I think we will not take to subjugation or subservience well at all.for me I don't believe in God. But I'll play devil's advocate...

If there were a God, and he had a policy favoring us, he would choose a policy of non-interfence to allow man to make his own discoveries of self, and to allow free will in order to let us grow as individuals.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here, as I'm not into believing in aliens among us or God. So what are you getting at ? I'm saying I believe that we're not necessarily the most advance form of life in the universe, but that doesn't translate to belief in God. As for alien life, that hasn't been proven yet either.

But I agree with you that our search for truth lies within, not without.

Tiberius

Jul1-03, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
So, are you saying that we should each establish our respective positions on what is "going on" with/within/or outside of the Universe before offering our "answer" to the question?

Then, we'd each be saying something like this: "I'm coming from a paradigm that holds that thus and such is true , and so within that context I believe that we are individuals because..."?

Yes, I think that would be very helpful to communication of these various concepts - right on :)

Or, are you saying that -- because of all the diverse perspectives -- our answers would be meaningful only to those who share a similiar paradigm ( preaching to the choir) while the rest of us couldn't care less...so why discuss it in the first place?

Heh, well that may well prove true. For example, it's really pointless to debate abortion unless you both have the same definitions of life, rights, "person", and a whole host of other philosophic and religious foundations. It's also pointless to debate evolution until you agree on what constitutes evidence, the burden of proof, the actual facts of what evidence there are and aren't, and perhaps the reliability of biblical creation.

But there are some good reasons for discussing and sharing various beliefs, even if we haven't come to terms with each other as to the foundations of those beliefs...

1) It's fun! That's the main reason I post and read here really.

2) It is important to understand the views of others, even if you don't agree with them. That goes from the very first premises, up the tree to the very last conclusions. Along the way, it offers insight to our whole view and, if we're open minded, just might allow us to change for the better.

3) Often, people can have a resistance to an idea because they dislike what they THINK it is based on, or they fear where they THINK it may lead. Discussing other levels of the worldview may help to alleviate that concern, or at least make it more realistic. For example, I often get strong resistance from people when I debate the rationality of my atheistic position. Not in all cases, but in many I find that the force of their resistance comes, not from the facts actually being discussed, but from the fear they have that my conclusions would lead to meaninglessness and despair. Therefore, it may be helpful for me to share my humanistic beliefs with them, even though we may still disagree as to their foundations. This often shows them that there IS a secular basis for leading an ethical and meaningful life. With those concerns dealt with (at least somewhat), it is then easier to return to the atheistic debate and for both of us to focus on those facts, instead of having an irrelevant aversion or distraction based on other levels of the worldview.

But who among us could keep from arguing against each others' basic premises (let alone get to their answers) ...arguing as if we were actually going to change somebody's mind!

True, and that's why people who like debate have fun here. But although it's hard to tell the difference, there are those among us who are just here to "win the argument" and those actually exploring the issue. Because I often say my position outright and don't dilly-dally, people often mistake me for someone just out to "win". But I despise this take on debate. I once saw a book at the bookstore titled, "How to win any debate", and it was by a lawyer or salesman or something. It made me sick. The point of a debate should never be to win. If I'm wrong, I WANT to lose, but it will have to be a real loss backed up with good reasons in order to teach me anything.

When two people disagree, there are only two possibilities: one of them is wrong, or both of them are wrong. Both cannot be right in my view (note, if both merely misunderstand each other, then they may be right but they are both "wrong" in the sense that they are misunderstanding each other). Therefore, debate presents the opportunity for one or both to improve. The true winner in a debate is the loser, because s/he has had the opportunity to learn and adjust their views to what is likely more accurate. My favorite debates are the ones I lose, but that's only valuable to me if I made the other work for their victory.

Is this true? Are you "very interested" in hearing a "line of reasoning connecting the concept of individuality to our place [ or our FUNCTION?] in the Universe?"

YES! I may or may not agree with it, but I definitely want to know what arguments are out there so I can study them. For example, I could probably get on this board under a different name and have you thouroughly convinced I was a fundamentalist evangelical Christian. I could debate nearly any issue from that perspective, offering detailed rationale. That's how well we should all understand the others' positions - especially those we disagree with (like me and fundie christians).

And are you just as interested if you do not relate to the "foundational belief system"?

Yes.

I agree completely. My paradigm does not hold that "God" gave me a "purpose" but that I get to choose my own. However, Tiberius, you and I would part company at what comes next: that once we choose our purpose, the natural forces of the non-physical Universe would align with our intentions and actions to create and direct us to "openings" for our purpose to unfold. (Oops. Sorry about that. My paradigm is showing.)

Yep. No disrespect, but that sounds pretty looney tunes to me. But very intelligent and respectable people believe in things like angels and karma so you're in good company. :)

I once read somewhere that "The Meaning of Life is the Meaning We Give It" ...and this works for me.

Me too.

So, what ARE the "really important questions facing us"?

Whew! That's a lot of stuff. You know, all the issues of "applied" philosophy, such as: living ethically, getting along with one another, building a just and workable society, dealing with multicultural issues, dealing with the effects of technology on our lives, finding meaning and purpose in life, building worldviews and meaningful life philosophy we can live by, that is also in harmony with scientific facts, being happy and fulfilled, etc etc...

Kerrie

Jul1-03, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Tiberius
Kerri,

1) You said you thought I was complaining about the relevancy of the topic to the forum. This is incorrect. If you go back and reread the order of the posts you will find that I never once stated anything about whether or not this topic was in the right place, until others said that MY physiological explanation does not belong in the philosophy section. In Defence of, and in response to the claim that I had "forgotten what forum I was in", I said that the question is a material one and so it was not I who had forgotten. This is the first time, and the only comments I made in this regard were in response to being accused of ME not being in the right forum.

2) What do you mean by "attitude"? How am I to phrase the assersions that I made? I submit that there was no possible way to make the claims that I did on this thread in a way that wouldn't get me accused of having an attitude. If you can find some incident where I called someone a name or attacked them personally on this thread then I'd be suprised. Otherwise, I think this is just a case of not liking the position I am taking and taking it personally that I disagree, and I can't do anything about that. Everything I have stated has been about the topic and in response to comments directed at me. These responses have been plainly factual and addressed the ideas - not the people.

3) Science isn't complete. But what there is of it should be acknowledged in philosophy - and there is a lot of it concerning "why we are individuals". Then, from that point, further speculation would be highly entertaining to read. That is my point in a nutshell and my response to the claim that my scientific explanation is out of place on this thread. I don't see what is so controversial or threatening about that, or what should invoke the attitude that claims of scientific completness have been made. That is a "straw man" argument and therefore irrelevant.

I would make a comment here about not meaning to be rude, but I tried that earlier in this thread and it was answered with "but you are" so I'll not waste time with that again.

My last response to you was my opinion[;)] You seem to take my opinion personally for such an objective outlook on why we are individuals...

Kerrie

Jul1-03, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Tiberius
2) It is important to understand the views of others, even if you don't agree with them. That goes from the very first premises, up the tree to the very last conclusions. Along the way, it offers insight to our whole view and, if we're open minded, just might allow us to change for the better.

3) Often, people can have a resistance to an idea because they dislike what they THINK it is based on, or they fear where they THINK it may lead. Discussing other levels of the worldview may help to alleviate that concern, or at least make it more realistic. For example, I often get strong resistance from people when I debate the rationality of my atheistic position. Not in all cases, but in many I find that the force of their resistance comes, not from the facts actually being discussed, but from the fear they have that my conclusions would lead to meaninglessness and despair. Therefore, it may be helpful for me to share my humanistic beliefs with them, even though we may still disagree as to their foundations. This often shows them that there IS a secular basis for leading an ethical and meaningful life. With those concerns dealt with (at least somewhat), it is then easier to return to the atheistic debate and for both of us to focus on those facts, instead of having an irrelevant aversion or distraction based on other levels of the worldview.

True, and that's why people who like debate have fun here. But although it's hard to tell the difference, there are those among us who are just here to "win the argument" and those actually exploring the issue. Because I often say my position outright and don't dilly-dally, people often mistake me for someone just out to "win". But I despise this take on debate. I once saw a book at the bookstore titled, "How to win any debate", and it was by a lawyer or salesman or something. It made me sick. The point of a debate should never be to win. If I'm wrong, I WANT to lose, but it will have to be a real loss backed up with good reasons in order to teach me anything.

When two people disagree, there are only two possibilities: one of them is wrong, or both of them are wrong. Both cannot be right in my view (note, if both merely misunderstand each other, then they may be right but they are both "wrong" in the sense that they are misunderstanding each other). Therefore, debate presents the opportunity for one or both to improve. The true winner in a debate is the loser, because s/he has had the opportunity to learn and adjust their views to what is likely more accurate. My favorite debates are the ones I lose, but that's only valuable to me if I made the other work for their victory.

YES! I may or may not agree with it, but I definitely want to know what arguments are out there so I can study them. For example, I could probably get on this board under a different name and have you thouroughly convinced I was a fundamentalist evangelical Christian. I could debate nearly any issue from that perspective, offering detailed rationale. That's how well we should all understand the others' positions - especially those we disagree with (like me and fundie christians).

Yes.

Yep. No disrespect, but that sounds pretty looney tunes to me. But very intelligent and respectable people believe in things like angels and karma so you're in good company. :)

Me too.

Whew! That's a lot of stuff. You know, all the issues of "applied" philosophy, such as: living ethically, getting along with one another, building a just and workable society, dealing with multicultural issues, dealing with the effects of technology on our lives, finding meaning and purpose in life, building worldviews and meaningful life philosophy we can live by, that is also in harmony with scientific facts, being happy and fulfilled, etc etc... [/B]

comments like this can be posted in the Physics Feedback forum...let's get back on topic...

Zantra

Jul1-03, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Tiberius

3) Often, people can have a resistance to an idea because they dislike what they THINK it is based on, or they fear where they THINK it may lead. Discussing other levels of the worldview may help to alleviate that concern, or at least make it more realistic. For example, I often get strong resistance from people when I debate the rationality of my atheistic position. Not in all cases, but in many I find that the force of their resistance comes, not from the facts actually being discussed, but from the fear they have that my conclusions would lead to meaninglessness and despair. Therefore, it may be helpful for me to share my humanistic beliefs with them, even though we may still disagree as to their foundations. This often shows them that there IS a secular basis for leading an ethical and meaningful life. With those concerns dealt with (at least somewhat), it is then easier to return to the atheistic debate and for both of us to focus on those facts, instead of having an irrelevant aversion or distraction based on other levels of the worldview.

Personally I find solace in existence itsself. I don't need to be reinfornced by a "God" in order to be thankful for my life and the opportunities it presents. For some reason people seem to have trouble with the concept that we just exist and that weather it's through Universal randomness or divine intervetion, life is still life.

When two people disagree, there are only two possibilities: one of them is wrong, or both of them are wrong. Both cannot be right in my view (note, if both merely misunderstand each other, then they may be right but they are both "wrong" in the sense that they are misunderstanding each other). Therefore, debate presents the opportunity for one or both to improve. The true winner in a debate is the loser, because s/he has had the opportunity to learn and adjust their views to what is likely more accurate. My favorite debates are the ones I lose, but that's only valuable to me if I made the other work for their victory.

Not to sound prophetic, but if there is knowledge and understanding gained from a loss, then no one ever truly looses. People don't remember you when you win, but how you handle yourself when you loose.