Why study philosophy? I know the answer for me but it may not fit you all that well. When I first studied any of it I felt like it amounted to something similar to he said, she said arguments. Thus I was more confused after studying it than before. But at least that proved I was not brain dead, if so I would have ben unable to become more confused. That's my reason and I'm sticking to it.For me philosophy isn't so much a body of knowledge as a way of thinking. It clarifies your thoughts and helps you to weed out the obviously wrong answers, so that you hopefully get closer to the truth. Not that you'll ever be certain; not being certain is what philosophy is all about. But you'll hopefully understand WHY you can't be certain, and that's a big help.
Why study philosophy? I know the answer for me but it may not fit you all that well. When I first studied any of it I felt like it amounted to something similar to he said, she said arguments. Thus I was more confused after studying it than before. But at least that proved I was not brain dead, if so I would have ben unable to become more confused. That's my reason and I'm sticking to it.For me philosophy isn't so much a body of knowledge as a way of thinking. It clarifies your thoughts and helps you to weed out the obviously wrong answers, so that you hopefully get closer to the truth. Not that you'll ever be certain; not being certain is what philosophy is all about. But you'll hopefully understand WHY you can't be certain, and that's a big help.Good point. If you think of philosophy as a way to think critically then it's worth it. If you look at it as a path to The Truth, you'll only get frustrated. I found out too late (after wasting lots of money on an undergrad degree and a year of grad school) that the big stuff, while fun, is usually just a very smart person making their subjective musings sound like objective "investigation". And doing so within an accepted vocabulary that seems to make sense but really doesn't.
You are incorrect, the existence of a reality independent of us and other people and minds cannot be verified or tested. You cannot verify there is another observer or if you truly are looking at the same thing. It cannot be quantified. If such a reality does not exist and neither do other people then it's all moot. In short, we cannot tell if this is a simulation/dream or reality, and to measure it is impossible. There is no such thing as an empath, thats just some woo perpetuated by alternative media sites (case in point, I aced that little test you had me do). The smile test does not work either, my brain just knows I am willingly distorting my face in such a manner. AKA, it doesn't work (I have tried this before quite a few times and was disappointed to find it did not work). Not to mention that the study that seemingly proved it was found to be faulty in the end. So no, you have just made another false statement which makes me question your intelligence and the accuracy of your statements. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2016/08/can_smiling_make_you_happier_maybe_maybe_not_we_have_no_idea.htmlTitanomachina said;No I am realistic in that I know I cannot understand where someone is coming from, imagination is just a pretty word for " I guess". If I don't know exactly how someone feels in regards to a matter I won't pretend to do so just to make them feel better. That would be greatly overestimating human mental ability. But humans try and fail at this while calling it the virtue of "empathy". It's honestly incredibly presumptuous. I posted a link as to why it this is so. Besides, learning about other perspectives is what got me into this. Learning that nothing is concrete and instead relative is how I got here. That we can't prove the existence of other minds and an outer reality. The numbers are the same as well.W4U said; Your rant contains one truth. You posited that our reality is subject to SR, and that is true. But that does not invalidate QM.Are there words or just cryptic abbreviations?Special Relativity deals with the mathematical results and effects of relative motion. IOW, reality appears just a little different when observed from different spacetime coordinates. Quantum Mechanics deals with the mathematical function and interaction of physical particles at quantum scale.Again this doesn't answer the point about how this is all moot if they can't validate the existence of and external reality and other people (or real world to be honest).But your argument is false, reality can be viewed from different perspectives and quantified, confirming that both observers are looking at the same thing, when all the mathematical factors are considered. There are a few examples of realities which we can observe but not quantify to any exactness, like the air and ocean wave interference patterns. The mathematical functions involved are just too overwhelming to model with confidence. You think life is worthless because we cannot predict the weather? But Science is beginning to know a little about meta-physics as we go own deeper into the quantum world. Thus the fabric of the universe itself still escapes detection, except in an indirect way. But there are a few promising directions, using abstract mathematics, such as Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) which models how spacetime *unfolds* via a fractal function.Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) invented by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent. This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation If nothing of this interests you, I am curious to know what it is you are interested in.Titano said; It doesn’t make me unhappy. It doesn’t make anyone on this forum unhappy. Just you. If you can’t even be sure I exist, why do you care if I care?Because I am an *empath* ( well developed MNS). Try one experiment for me: put on a smile and keep it there for 30 seconds. You'll feel better, guaranteed.Your brain will respond to the muscle action which symbolizes happiness.
Why study philosophy? I know the answer for me but it may not fit you all that well. When I first studied any of it I felt like it amounted to something similar to he said, she said arguments. Thus I was more confused after studying it than before. But at least that proved I was not brain dead, if so I would have ben unable to become more confused. That's my reason and I'm sticking to it.For me philosophy isn't so much a body of knowledge as a way of thinking. It clarifies your thoughts and helps you to weed out the obviously wrong answers, so that you hopefully get closer to the truth. Not that you'll ever be certain; not being certain is what philosophy is all about. But you'll hopefully understand WHY you can't be certain, and that's a big help. That actually has not been a big help and is the result of the distortion of my life and senses. Because there are no answers in philosophy then what's the point? It didn't clear my thoughts, it just made things worse. You cannot tell what is a wrong answer because you cannot prove it so, it's just your opinion. There is no objective right and wrong so you cannot evaluate any answer as right or wrong. I think you are doing it wrong if you say it gives clarity. I have said it before, it's just a tool for confusion, it ironically does not produce truth.
Why study philosophy? I know the answer for me but it may not fit you all that well. When I first studied any of it I felt like it amounted to something similar to he said, she said arguments. Thus I was more confused after studying it than before. But at least that proved I was not brain dead, if so I would have ben unable to become more confused. That's my reason and I'm sticking to it.For me philosophy isn't so much a body of knowledge as a way of thinking. It clarifies your thoughts and helps you to weed out the obviously wrong answers, so that you hopefully get closer to the truth. Not that you'll ever be certain; not being certain is what philosophy is all about. But you'll hopefully understand WHY you can't be certain, and that's a big help.Good point. If you think of philosophy as a way to think critically then it's worth it. If you look at it as a path to The Truth, you'll only get frustrated. I found out too late (after wasting lots of money on an undergrad degree and a year of grad school) that the big stuff, while fun, is usually just a very smart person making their subjective musings sound like objective "investigation". And doing so within an accepted vocabulary that seems to make sense but really doesn't. So then you agree that it is pointless? It claims to seek truth but it cannot provide truth and ultimately states that reality is belief based.
Titanomachina,So then you agree that it is pointless? It claims to seek truth but it cannot provide truth and ultimately states that reality is belief based.No, it is relativistic, which affords a different perspective, but which can be accounted for and equated with a mathematical formula. Remember the definition of *belief*; conviction without proof.
Sigh, no it cannot. A different perspective isn't truth, it is simply that, another perspective subject to the same flaws as any other. Grouping them together doesn't get you anything except people wanting to see things and connections that don't exist. No matter what you want to believe, math cannot explain the universe for it too is subjective. Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. Another way of defining belief sees it as a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something being true. That is the actually definition of belief and that is what all knowledge rests on. Math is no exception. It being relative is the same as it being pointless. Relative truth is worthless, anyone can make it up. But after your little tests have failed for me I doubt the accuracy of your statements. Again, all this is moot if you can't prove the existence of a reality independent of us and the existence of other minds (which nothing can).Titanomachina,So then you agree that it is pointless? It claims to seek truth but it cannot provide truth and ultimately states that reality is belief based.No, it is relativistic, which affords a different perspective, but which can be accounted for and equated with a mathematical formula. Remember the definition of *belief*; conviction without proof.
What flaws? If I hit you on the head with a ball-peen hammer and there are 10 witnesses, can I make an argument that all those witnesses cannot testify because their observations are all flawed. That’s a good defense?
p.s. are you writing your posts or am I hallucinating because you do not exist in my reality (proximity)?
You keep using the word “evidence” but you haven’t defined it
What flaws? If I hit you on the head with a ball-peen hammer and there are 10 witnesses, can I make an argument that all those witnesses cannot testify because their observations are all flawed. That's a good defense? p.s. are you writing your posts or am I hallucinating because you do not exist in my reality (proximity)?Essentially yes. They can all say they didn't see anything. BUt that's beside the point of your whole statement being moot if you cannot verify an external reality to exist independent of you or the existence of others. Not to mention how pointless life would be if it was all imaginary (and not to mention it would negate anything you said).
Come to think of it, Titan, based on the title of this thread, which you created, you’re absolutely right. There is no reason for you to study philosophy. It would be complete and utter waste.
Lois
What flaws? If I hit you on the head with a ball-peen hammer and there are 10 witnesses, can I make an argument that all those witnesses cannot testify because their observations are all flawed. That's a good defense? p.s. are you writing your posts or am I hallucinating because you do not exist in my reality (proximity)?Essentially yes. They can all say they didn't see anything. BUt that's beside the point of your whole statement being moot if you cannot verify an external reality to exist independent of you or the existence of others. Not to mention how pointless life would be if it was all imaginary (and not to mention it would negate anything you said). No no, you have it backwards, MY life is pointless to YOU, but it is meaningful to ME. Therefore I exist. I might add that your life also seems pointless to you. Therefore, by your own argument, you are making the claim that you don't exist. Normally the person making the claim has the burden of proof. But in your case I'll not hold you to that. That would be pointless. :bug:
The philosophical zombie philosophy is really not that interesting if you think about it. Whether other people are zombies or hallucinations, it’s the same. It’s a strange way to store the data of your mind. I don’t understand where the universe came from, but in my mind I have an experience of other people, like me, except they write books and do YouTubes about where the universe came from, so if I wanted to call up that information, I could. Sometimes, when I call up information like “God did it”, I find similar books and video, but it’s incoherent, it doesn’t map on to things I know and it contradicts things I’ve determined to be true. Why would I store that nonsense at all? For me to survive, I need my version of reality to match something, something related to my survival, even if I exist outside of what I understand as time and space, otherwise I couldn’t be here to attempt to survive.
The other possibility is that I only exist for some purpose that I will never understand and can’t interact with. Then I can’t do anything about that. I’m left with the same tools I had before I had that thought and no tools to determine if that thought is valid. So why pursue that thought? It is part of what I don’t know, and I’m constantly trying to reduce what I don’t know and add to what I do know. If I find some evidence that I’m a brain in a vat, I’ll pursue that, meanwhile, the sun is out and the wind is blowing the snow off the roofs and whipping around the city. I live in a snow globe.
Come to think of it, Titan, based on the title of this thread, which you created, you're absolutely right. There is no reason for you to study philosophy. It would be complete and utter waste. LoisAs for you apparently.
What flaws? If I hit you on the head with a ball-peen hammer and there are 10 witnesses, can I make an argument that all those witnesses cannot testify because their observations are all flawed. That's a good defense? p.s. are you writing your posts or am I hallucinating because you do not exist in my reality (proximity)?Essentially yes. They can all say they didn't see anything. BUt that's beside the point of your whole statement being moot if you cannot verify an external reality to exist independent of you or the existence of others. Not to mention how pointless life would be if it was all imaginary (and not to mention it would negate anything you said). No no, you have it backwards, MY life is pointless to YOU, but it is meaningful to ME. Therefore I exist. I might add that your life also seems pointless to you. Therefore, by your own argument, you are making the claim that you don't exist. Normally the person making the claim has the burden of proof. But in your case I'll not hold you to that. That would be pointless. :bug: That logic is not sound. If it is all imaginary then it is meaningless no matter what you do. You claim to exist, so prove it (you can't). I thought you studied philosophy, or are is such terrible logic another case about why it is pointless? You also have not addressed my point in that if we cannot prove the existence of other minds and and external reality then it is meaningless to live. As I have said, if it is all imaginary then your life is meaningless and pointless (the only way to avoid this fact is to BELIEVE otherwise, another case of how philosophy fails to be of use.
The philosophical zombie philosophy is really not that interesting if you think about it. Whether other people are zombies or hallucinations, it's the same. It's a strange way to store the data of your mind. I don't understand where the universe came from, but in my mind I have an experience of other people, like me, except they write books and do YouTubes about where the universe came from, so if I wanted to call up that information, I could. Sometimes, when I call up information like "God did it", I find similar books and video, but it's incoherent, it doesn't map on to things I know and it contradicts things I've determined to be true. Why would I store that nonsense at all? For me to survive, I need my version of reality to match something, something related to my survival, even if I exist outside of what I understand as time and space, otherwise I couldn't be here to attempt to survive. The other possibility is that I only exist for some purpose that I will never understand and can't interact with. Then I can't do anything about that. I'm left with the same tools I had before I had that thought and no tools to determine if that thought is valid. So why pursue that thought? It is part of what I don't know, and I'm constantly trying to reduce what I don't know and add to what I do know. If I find some evidence that I'm a brain in a vat, I'll pursue that, meanwhile, the sun is out and the wind is blowing the snow off the roofs and whipping around the city. I live in a snow globe.It's actually not the same, because if they aren't real then it doesn't matter what happens to them and you can treat them however without consequences. And you cannot know anything, you can only believe it to be so. So you know nothing.
The philosophical zombie philosophy is really not that interesting if you think about it. Whether other people are zombies or hallucinations, it's the same. It's a strange way to store the data of your mind. I don't understand where the universe came from, but in my mind I have an experience of other people, like me, except they write books and do YouTubes about where the universe came from, so if I wanted to call up that information, I could. Sometimes, when I call up information like "God did it", I find similar books and video, but it's incoherent, it doesn't map on to things I know and it contradicts things I've determined to be true. Why would I store that nonsense at all? For me to survive, I need my version of reality to match something, something related to my survival, even if I exist outside of what I understand as time and space, otherwise I couldn't be here to attempt to survive. The other possibility is that I only exist for some purpose that I will never understand and can't interact with. Then I can't do anything about that. I'm left with the same tools I had before I had that thought and no tools to determine if that thought is valid. So why pursue that thought? It is part of what I don't know, and I'm constantly trying to reduce what I don't know and add to what I do know. If I find some evidence that I'm a brain in a vat, I'll pursue that, meanwhile, the sun is out and the wind is blowing the snow off the roofs and whipping around the city. I live in a snow globe.It's actually not the same, because if they aren't real then it doesn't matter what happens to them and you can treat them however without consequences. And you cannot know anything, you can only believe it to be so. So you know nothing. I love our little conversations, but could you work on writing complete sentences a little? "you can treat them however without consequences" - what does that mean? The point of the second paragraph was that even if I know nothing, in the normal sense of knowing, as in my thoughts have some relationship to reality, even if reality is not knowable, or not external, or just doesn't exist at all in any normal sense of existing, then let's call whatever is going on with me or you or whomever "believing". We can't really collect evidence in the scientific sense because no matter how hard we try, we're not getting data that means anything, because we have nothing to compare it to. So, as you seem to be defining it, despite your not defining nearly any word you use, I'll grant you that, I'll concede. I cannot know anything so I know nothing. A tautology, but let's move on. What's left for me to do? I could have some sort of emotional reaction, but then I'm saying that I have some control over that. I'm saying I can have a thought and make a decision about what the thought means and I can empower certain feelings. And I'm right back into believing that I can discover how to manipulate my environment, even if it's just the environment in my head. And that's where I always end up. I always end up positing experiments with myself. I lay in bed feeling sorry for myself and bored, then suddenly a thought pops in my head. The next thing I know I'm giving food to the homeless and having some guy with bugs in his beard tell me how he's thankful that he woke up this morning. As Kermit said, "sometimes it makes you stop and wonder why but why wonder why wonder?"
Why would you willingly give food to a homeless man (who may not exist)?
What I mean is that you can do anything to the imaginary folks. Kill, maim, steal, and do whatever you wish to them. It’s not like they exist, have lives, or even feelings. They are just figments of your imagination and there is no negative consequences to your actions towards them.
It makes your existence meaningless when the entirely of reality is imaginary, nothing has an impact. Nothing matters. It’s absolute isolation.
Speaking of nothing being about to know, how can one know things continue to exist (if they ever did) when you aren’t looking at them
And we’ve got to the end of another thread where you have run out of anything to say.
“Life is an illusion” is an interesting philosophical question to ponder, but for you, the more profound question is, “What if this is all real?”
What if what your senses are picking up is a pretty good match to what is out there. What if your are a brain in a body, just a mass of mitochondria and DNA and you had no thoughts before you were born and you learned through experience. And, of course, despite it being unprovable, there are 7 billion others like you. What if?