Im just another you

[CambroNZ]

Imagine if the Universe is a Conscious being and its totally aware of its own existence from its birth in the big bang it began manipulating everything in its laws of physics to create the galaxies so the galaxies were the consequence of the Universes Decisions

The galaxies were now born/created and from then on they began creating using the environment and manipulating what it could in the laws of physics it could manipulate to create stars

So now stars were the offspring of the galaxies and they were born/created and then the stars began using what it could in its environment to create its own solar system and planets consicously aware of what it was creating and it gave birth to planets

The Planets were then born and began doing what it could in its environment using the laws of physics it was given to do what ever it could before it died.

The Planets (some of them anyway) decided to use the conditions that it was given to create life and so the earth (or other plantes) gave birth to life

So zoom into ANOTHER layer of existence and reality and were on OUR current layer of life/existence of reality where we do what we can in our environment, consicously manipulating what we can using the laws of pysics to create. but we are all the consicous consquence of the bigger life form above us.

But it doesnt end at humans

Zoom in futher and you have simple animal life, they have fewer abilities to think and manipulate things in thier environment and are aware of less then us

Then there are small insects

Microorganisms and single celled beings

Then atoms

inside atoms you have more atoms

inside those atoms will probably more micro micro atoms and the layers of existence and reality are infinate

even outside the universe there will probably be something bigger creating big bang fuel to create more universes

But we are all connected and all a consious consequence of the bigger thing above us..... well thats what I believe anyway

Now imagine if before the big bang this being knew it could be, do, make, experience anything it ever wanted.... it would be pretty boring after a while wouldnt it so......

If I was that being, I would randomly explode myself into an almost infinite amount of separate parts and just see how it all came together again, and do that over and over and over again but in a different way.

So there is people in your reality because you WANT people in your reality, you created this reality, were all connected, im just another you

The current situation we are in now would be the equivalent of your body organs fighting and competing with eachother, if we realise we are all apart of the same being we would co-operate and be kind to eachother, there is no reason to disagree or fight or argue.

anyway I just felt like I wanted to write this all down

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^I think you are confusing an over-active imagination with philosophy.

[Meridian]

Dude, my mind was like "uuuhhhuuu", but then I read your post and it went like "kapong!"

[ZeroNowhere]

Bill Hicks did it better.

[Dean]

Then atoms

inside atoms you have more atoms

inside those atoms will probably more micro micro atoms and the layers of existence and reality are infinate

I don't know what to say. Take a rudimentary course in chemistry.

[JazzRemington]

Status of mind = [email protected]

[Calmwinds]

Oh let him have his imagination. This sort of spark of wonder is good, just don't let him delve towards mysticism though.

[bcbm]

i love weed

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No one begrudges him/her an imagination. The point is that he/she confuses an over-active imagination with philosophy.

[CambroNZ]

No one begrudges him/her an imagination. The point is that he/she confuses an over-active imagination with philosophy.

ok I have another idea.

Imagine in there were an infinate number of paralel realities and the phrase of "every action creating an equal and opposite reaction" could be applied to this

For example I decide I want to get a hair cut. the equal and opposite reaction would be the creation of a paralel reality where I choose NOT to have the haircut. but the difference in the reality I saw was the one I made the CHOICE to be in, all becuase I WANTED that particular reality. and I see the VERSIONS of the same people relevant to the frequency of reality that I am on.

Another example is. Say all those religious fanatics that believed the rapture was going to occur and they went up on top of that mountain believing it was going to happen.

Becuase we didnt see the world the way they did and didnt believe in thier beliefs in OUR reality we saw them fail and set another date for the Rapture but you cant prove that those individuals Reality they actually experienced was the reality they believed would occur.

Its like god exists for people who BELIEVE in god but he doesnt exist for people who DONT believe in him, just like people who believe in ghosts, if you dont believe in ghosts they arent real for you but could be real for people who do believe in ghosts. There is no such thing as the ONE TRUE WAY. the only way is YOUR way.

Reality is whatever you want it to be, science is just as real as god just like the science of global warming it just as real as the science of global cooling. It just depends what YOU as an individual want to take into YOUR OWN reality.

Another example is like. If I no longer believe in Sun Cancer and walk around in the sun all day long, in my reality I ever turn red but becuase YOU believe in Sun cancer in YOUR reality you could see the paralel version of ME relevant to YOUR beliefs die of sun cancer, but its not actually me its just the paralel version of me relevant to your view of reality

Its impossable for me to see the world how you do just as its impossable for you to see the world how I do, its stupid to think that everyone sees the same thing.

Once again this is just what I BELIEVE, no one else has to agree with it.

But if you do believe this and you realise that you are the master of your own reality then you might agree that the reason you have people in your reality is becuase you WANT people in your reality so were all apart of the SAME Collective Consciousness, so thats why the title is "Im just another you" becuase its like you have/created people in YOUR reality becuase you WANT people in your reality, so why be mean or argue with other people if their all apart of you? becuase you see people the way you want to see people.

For example if this sounds crazy then in YOUR reality you might just see me as some random homeless guy in the street ranting this crazy stuff but other people wont see me like that.

To some Stalin was good, to other Stalin was Evil, to some other he was a Good, Nessasary evil. No one sees the world the same way, everyone sees the world the way they WANT to see the world.... or the way they have been TOLD to see the world. So I never watch mainstream news anymore :)

Now this is just what I believe so no one has to crusify me for my beliefs :) Ive been on other forums and have been totally ripped apart for what I say :p

[griffjam]

Imagining the 10th Dimension (http://vimeo.com/317469)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CamBroz:


ok I have another idea.

Again, I think you are confusing philosophy with science fiction -- or perhaps with an open confession of your whacky beliefs.

And please do not take this is my way of asking you for yet more of the same.:(

[bcbm]

i think instead of just dismissing their ideas or insulting them, it would be a lot more helpful to recommend philosophers who address the same or related issues, and try to start an actual discussion?

[AK]

I, too, have once held similar theories... then I realised it was all bullshit (no offense).

[AK]

Imagining the 10th Dimension (http://vimeo.com/317469)
I thnk that guy was trippin'.

[the last donut of the night]

Comrades, if the OP is wrong, then tell him/her why. Don't resort to these smalls insults. I got the same shit when I was a beginner here and I still get it too. It's not cool.

[Meridian]

Imagine if the Universe is a Conscious being and its totally aware of its own existence from its birth in the big bang it began manipulating everything in its laws of physics to create the galaxies so the galaxies were the consequence of the Universes Decisions
We can imagine that, but is it philosophy or pure imagination? Nothing I know indicates that the universe is a conscious being, given regular definitions of the word "conscious". The universe is not "something", but rather the name of what all things are in, so it is not considered to be conscious or able to do things.

Galaxies are not "born", if someone says that then that is purely a distraction as galaxies are formed from that which it is made up of (stars and planets). So, stars and planets would have to come in existence before we could call the constellation, or system they appear in, a galaxy. Galaxies, stars and planets are not conscious, either.

I think your post also reveals a rather confused idea of the laws of physics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BCBM:


i think instead of just dismissing their ideas or insulting them, it would be a lot more helpful to recommend philosophers who address the same or related issues, and try to start an actual discussion?

On the contrary, I think it more important to expose this as fantasy, not philosophy.

Otherwise we shall have to include even cheap science fiction trash as a contribution to philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedManatee:


Comrades, if the OP is wrong, then tell him/her why. Don't resort to these smalls insults. I got the same shit when I was a beginner here and I still get it too. It's not cool.

I did: he is wrong in thinking pure fantasy is philosophy. End of...

[Muzk]

Eh, I didn't read everything; but space can't be infinite, or we couldn't move at all! If we tried to hurl a stone at a target, it won't hit it because it simply can't travel through "infinity"


Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I'm sorry to have to tell you, Muzk, but Zeno's paradpxes aren't paradoxes after all, but simple confusions over the use of words like 'move', and 'place'.

[Muzk]

I was just trying to give an example of why it is impossible to have an infinite amount of space... The tortoise/arrow thing is a good example IMO, because if space was infinite, progress(movement of objects) couldn't be made... but why isn't it a paradox? It's a contradiction to everyones logic(and science)

[the last donut of the night]

RedManatee:



I did: he is wrong in thinking pure fantasy is philosophy. End of...

Well, the OP seems like a beginner to philosophy. Instead of simply calling it "over-imagination", which it might be, how about you tell the OP why he's wrong, or at least provide some links. Like Muzk did.

[Number 16 Bus Shelter]

We can imagine that, but is it philosophy or pure imagination? Nothing I know indicates that the universe is a conscious being, given regular definitions of the word "conscious". The universe is not "something", but rather the name of what all things are in, so it is not considered to be conscious or able to do things.


You say that nothing you know indicates that the universe is a conscious being, therefore the theory is bunk. However many philosophers have pointed out that nothing indicates that other people have minds.
Here's a small portion of the argument against the existence of other minds apart from yours.


You can't directly observe what goes on in the mind of another, or that others have minds. So how could your belief in the existence of other minds be justified?
You could argue perhaps, that other peoples behavior provides you with a good reason to believe others have minds. You know that if you feel pain, you're likely to react in a specific way. For example, if you are pricked by a needle, you're like to jump, or flinch. By observing the same reaction in another, it seems a like good grounds for believing that they also feel the prick of a needle, and therefore have a mind.
The rationalist would give you this example;
Suppose I cut open a thousand cherries, and find every single one has a stone in the middle. I'm pretty justified in believing that all cherries have stones in the middle. Admittedly, I might be wrong, But the thousand I've cut open give me a pretty good reason to suspect all cherries have stones. Correct?
But now, Suppose I cut open just a SINGLE cherry. Imagine I have only seen the inside of a single cherry in my entire life, and I am using this single cherry as evidence to claim all cherries have stones. This single cherry may in fact be a very unusual cherry, just as an oyster with a pearl inside is unusual.
When you look at your own experience to the reaction of pain, and apply it to everyone else to prove they have a mind, you are cutting open just a SINGLE cherry.

With this argument rationalists are NOT saying, it's POSSIBLE that other minds do not exist/or exist, they are saying that there is in Fact little, if any reason to justify other minds apart from your own exist.

:thumbup1:

[Buffalo Souljah]

Oh let him have his imagination. This sort of spark of wonder is good, just don't let him delve towards mysticism though.


What's wrong with mysticism?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Because it's arrant non-sense.

[black magick hustla]

I think the biggest mistake here is to assume the universe is a sentinent being. Rosa is a bit harsh about this. A lot of philosophers have had similar ideas, or their ideas approached a similar thing, except they were a bit more sophisticated. The whole idea that the universe "follows deterministic laws" is one of these ideas.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dada:


Rosa is a bit harsh about this. A lot of philosophers have had similar ideas, or their ideas approached a similar thing, except they were a bit more sophisticated. The whole idea that the universe "follows deterministic laws" is one of these ideas.And their ideas were pure fantasy too.

On this basis, Enid Blyton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enid_Blyton) and JK Rowling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling) would be major philosophers:

The new Immanuel Kant?

Edited out picture

Wittgenstein, eat your heart out:

Edited out picture

Rosa, this is not only provocative but is considered spamming. You know the rules, and frankly, this should also be considered flaming since you're collectively insulting various people here with irrelevant images. A verbal Warning for both.
03-03-10 Dean

[Number 16 Bus Shelter]

fuck Kant. The entire youth of burgeoning philosophers is spent wasted studying him:laugh:
Perhaps we would be better off if they had studied diligently the works of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, or Jack Vance.
Haha.

[Meridian]

You say that nothing you know indicates that the universe is a conscious being, therefore the theory is bunk. However many philosophers have pointed out that nothing indicates that other people have minds.
Here's a small portion of the argument against the existence of other minds apart from yours.


You can't directly observe what goes on in the mind of another, or that others have minds. So how could your belief in the existence of other minds be justified?
:thumbup1:
Actually, I would say that pretty much everything indicates that other people (than myself) have minds.



You could argue perhaps, that other peoples behavior provides you with a good reason to believe others have minds. You know that if you feel pain, you're likely to react in a specific way. For example, if you are pricked by a needle, you're like to jump, or flinch. By observing the same reaction in another, it seems a like good grounds for believing that they also feel the prick of a needle, and therefore have a mind.
I may spontaneously react in a certain way, but there is certainly no conscious "mind activity" of mine that is the cause of that. Neither, I think, would it be so for others. So, you are dealing with an unclear definition of "mind" here. Is the mind something that we can not know of, see, but just operates in the background somehow, that people are supposed to have? Is the mind the physical brain? Obviously not. Or are we speaking about conscious thought, such as what one has when speaking to oneself internally? Yes, that is using ones mind, isn't it?



The rationalist would give you this example;

Suppose I cut open a thousand cherries, and find every single one has a stone in the middle. I'm pretty justified in believing that all cherries have stones in the middle. Admittedly, I might be wrong, But the thousand I've cut open give me a pretty good reason to suspect all cherries have stones. Correct?
But now, Suppose I cut open just a SINGLE cherry. Imagine I have only seen the inside of a single cherry in my entire life, and I am using this single cherry as evidence to claim all cherries have stones. This single cherry may in fact be a very unusual cherry, just as an oyster with a pearl inside is unusual.
When you look at your own experience to the reaction of pain, and apply it to everyone else to prove they have a mind, you are cutting open just a SINGLE cherry.
No, that is an invalid argument to use in this context.

Minds are not something we can see if we cut open anything, physically. We could cut open heads all day but we would find nothing but brains. Using one's mind is characterised by using one's language. You could say that there is communication already in the use of the mind, which is how you are able to think things then say what you think. Many people are even able to say things as they think them, formulating sentences on the go.

What people who are into questioning the minds of other's usually put into question is not reflexes or unconscious behaviour done by the brain, but the kind of language use described above; conscious thought.

We now see a clarification of the word "mind", and perhaps we also see that to use the mind is to invoke language as a tool, or "vehicle of the thought". Without this tool there could not be a conscious thought, as we define it. The tool of language is something shared between people, it is what makes it communicatively operational in many ways. So, perhaps we are beginning to see now that to speculate that you, or I, is the only one with mind power is utter folly.

[Number 16 Bus Shelter]

Actually, I would say that pretty much everything indicates that other people (than myself) have minds.


I may spontaneously react in a certain way, but there is certainly no conscious "mind activity" of mine that is the cause of that. Neither, I think, would it be so for others. So, you are dealing with an unclear definition of "mind" here. Is the mind something that we can not know of, see, but just operates in the background somehow, that people are supposed to have? Is the mind the physical brain? Obviously not. Or are we speaking about conscious thought, such as what one has when speaking to oneself internally? Yes, that is using ones mind, isn't it?


I did not say that reaction to pain is proof of the existence of a mind. I merely stated it often used as false proof. And, yes I agree that speaking to oneself internally could be a claim to having a mind.




No, that is an invalid argument to use in this context.

Minds are not something we can see if we cut open anything, physically. We could cut open heads all day but we would find nothing but brains. Using one's mind is characterised by using one's language. You could say that there is communication already in the use of the mind, which is how you are able to think things then say what you think. Many people are even able to say things as they think them, formulating sentences on the go.

What people who are into questioning the minds of other's usually put into question is not reflexes or unconscious behaviour done by the brain, but the kind of language use described above; conscious thought.

We now see a clarification of the word "mind", and perhaps we also see that to use the mind is to invoke language as a tool, or "vehicle of the thought". Without this tool there could not be a conscious thought, as we define it. The tool of language is something shared between people, it is what makes it communicatively operational in many ways. So, perhaps we are beginning to see now that to speculate that you, or I, is the only one with mind power is utter folly.In fact, a fallible conclusion. Just because other people can respond to questions directed at them, does not prove the existence of a mind. Can not a computer respond to simple questions, growing increasingly complicated as we progress technically? Can not even a simple computer win a game of chess?

Spoken language is no proof of mind. As for when they start a conversation, again no proof that they actually UNDERSTAND what they are saying. And of course we can never prove the existence of inner dialogue or thought.

[Meridian]

In fact, a fallible conclusion. Just because other people can respond to questions directed at them, does not prove the existence of a mind. Can not a computer respond to simple questions, growing increasingly complicated as we progress technically? Can not even a simple computer win a game of chess?

Okay, and proving that other people have a mind becomes about as difficult as proving that you have a mind yourself, then. Your separation of yourself from others suddenly disappeared. You can answer questions. You can perhaps even win a game of chess, not that I agree that winning a game of chess is necessarily relevant to what we agreed it meant to use a mind.



Spoken language is no proof of mind. As for when they start a conversation, again no proof that they actually UNDERSTAND what they are saying. And of course we can never prove the existence of inner dialogue or thought.
But wait... What is this "mind" thing you speak of now? Language is the vehicle of thought, thoughts have the form of language (else they could not be understood). The thought and its linguistic expression is one and the same. If you do not believe that, try to have the thought without using any of those words.

It is easy to think up an immaterial entity called "mind", which obviously could not be proven to exist in other people. But, language is the form of thoughts. That is, they are formed in language. Anyone who has learned a language, and has the capacity to use it, has the capacity to use their mind. Actually, one could even claim the two to be one and the same, demolishing any idea of duality, or difference of form between the physical and "psychological".

[Dean]

^^^Because it's arrant non-sense.

No its not. Mysticism is a recognition of, and focus on, our own activities as a compelling input into the system of our lifestyle. In other words, it recognizes that actions such as faith and hope have a direct role in our own ability to achieve what we want. Its a philosophical fusion of the action with the result in terms of human existence. The fundamental characteristics of mystical systems is not "nonsense" just because a large number of religious institutions use the system.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


Mysticism is a recognition of, and focus on, our own activities as a compelling input into the system of our lifestyle. In other words, it recognizes that actions such as faith and hope have a direct role in our own ability to achieve what we want. Its a philosophical fusion of the action with the result in terms of human existence. The fundamental characteristics of mystical systems is not "nonsense" just because a large number of religious institutions use the system.

Can I thank you, Dean, for confirming that mysticism is indeed arrant non-sense?

[Note, I did not say is was "nonsense".]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Muzk:


I was just trying to give an example of why it is impossible to have an infinite amount of space... The tortoise/arrow thing is a good example IMO, because if space was infinite, progress(movement of objects) couldn't be made... but why isn't it a paradox? It's a contradiction to everyones logic(and science)

1) Someone has to point out that traditional thought is like the proverbial emperor -- bereft of clothing.

2) I'd be happy to show you precisely where Zeno and the whole tradition stemming from him have gone wrong, but I am engaged in an extended punch-up with Red Cat. Howver, I have detailed my objections here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2005.htm

You will need to use the Quick Links at the top to skip to Section (4) The Classical Response To Zeno, and subsequent sections.

However, word of warning: my demolition of this tradition is slanted toward refuting Hegel's and Engels's use of Zeno. Zeno merely gets a drubbing in passing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Manatee:


Well, the OP seems like a beginner to philosophy. Instead of simply calling it "over-imagination", which it might be, how about you tell the OP why he's wrong, or at least provide some links. Like Muzk did.

My reply to Dada, above, gives my reasons.

[the last donut of the night]

Red Manatee:



My reply to Dada, above, gives my reasons.


Yeah, but this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack on your humanity. Chill out, dude.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Manatee:


Yeah, but this is a philosophical discussion, not an attack on your humanity. Chill out, dude.

Looks like you too are confusing fantasy with philosophy.

And where, for goodness sake, have I suggested I think this, or anything even remotely like it?


an attack on your humanity

[the last donut of the night]

Red Manatee:



Looks like you too are confusing fantasy with philosophy.

And where, for goodness sake, have I suggested I think this, or anything even remotely like it?

Well, no I am not. I'm just calling you on what seems to be intellectual elitism:


I did: he is wrong in thinking pure fantasy is philosophy. End of...

Oh, the horror!

No, it's not the end of because this person is obviously new to philosophy, and I don't think it's right for you to simply throw away the OP just because he doesn't know as much as of all of you. You know, many people have 'wacky' ideas about the world, including pretty crazy ones about socialism. Do you think it'd also be recommendable for comrades to dismiss every single person who takes communism to be mass-murder by a dictator? I mean, those people are confusing fantasy with philosophy as well.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedManatee:


I'm just calling you on what seems to be intellectual elitism:

It's not elitism to point out that fantasy is not philosophy, any more than it's not elitism to point out that scratching your head is not brain surgery.


Oh, the horror!

No, it's not the end of because this person is obviously new to philosophy, and I don't think it's right for you to simply throw away the OP just because he doesn't know as much as of all of you. You know, many people have 'wacky' ideas about the world, including pretty crazy ones about socialism. Do you think it'd also be recommendable for comrades to dismiss every single person who takes communism to be mass-murder by a dictator? I mean, those people are confusing fantasy with philosophy as well.

It's not a matter of 'knowing more'; if the OP thinks philosophy is the same as fantasy then he has a problem with the English language.

And, since he is new to Philosophy, it's important to put him straight from the get-go.

[the last donut of the night]

RedManatee:



It's not elitism to point out that fantasy is not philosophy, any more than it's not elitism to point out that scratching your head is not brain surgery.

Not in that sense, but your use of arrogance is most certainly elitist.


It's not a matter of 'knowing more'; if the OP thinks philosophy is the same as fantasy then he has a problem with the English language.

Not really. Not everybody is as subtle with words as you are. Not everybody has the opportunity of having such a well-versed knowledge in linguistics and philosophy as you.:rolleyes:


And, since he is new to Philosophy, it's important to put him straight from the get-go.

The same exact argument could be used to harass and bully newcomers to the Learning section:

"Hey, isn't communism a form of dictatorship?"

"Your understanding of politics basically amounts to nothing. Get it straight. Be cool and smart like us armchair socialists."

[black magick hustla]

Dada:



And their ideas were pure fantasy too.



I don't know why you get so defensive about it. Hegel is probably as silly as the things this guy posted and his influence was huge, whatever is your opinion about him. Probably more people know about Hegel than the plethora of analytics you like so much.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RedManatee:


Not in that sense, but your use of arrogance is most certainly elitist

What I can't figure out is why you think one of my best qualities is elitist.


Not really. Not everybody is as subtle with words as you are. Not everybody has the opportunity of having such a well-versed knowledge in linguistics and philosophy as you.

Nor did I once. As a worker, I went back to university and got myself an excellent educartion. I'm still a worker.

What's your excuse for remaining ignorant?


The same exact argument could be used to harass and bully newcomers to the Learning section:

"Hey, isn't communism a form of dictatorship?"

"Your understanding of politics basically amounts to nothing. Get it straight. Be cool and smart like us armchair socialists."

Well, this may be your method of dealing with things, but it's not mine.

Perhaps I can take lessons from you in how to be even more arrogant. You seem to know all about it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

dada:


I don't know why you get so defensive about it. Hegel is probably as silly as the things this guy posted and his influence was huge, whatever is your opinion about him. Probably more people know about Hegel than the plethora of analytics you like so much.

"Defensive" is. I think, the wrong word. I prefer "aggressive".:)

The point of your other comment, is, alas, lost on me.:confused:

[black magick hustla]

You claim what he is doing is "fantasy" not philosophy. I claim that some of the most renown philosophers indulged in fantasies like this and that does not mean what they did was not philosophy (Hegel)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

dada:


I claim that some of the most renown philosophers indulged in fantasies like this and that does not mean what they did was not philosophy (Hegel)

I partly agree with this, but Hegel at least tried to construct some sort of rationale for his fancies, and that is what makes him a philosopher (of a traditional sort) and not a pure fantasist.

There is nothing wrong with fantasy, but anyone who wants to indulge in it should post what they have to say at a creative writing or science fiction site.

[the last donut of the night]

What I can't figure out is why you think one of my best qualities is elitist.

Well, you're getting pretty aggressive about the OP's philosophical positions -- which is a bit overreacting, seeing that it's philosophy, not more relevant politics. Plus, the OP is a beginner, so I don't think aggressiveness is practical or nice when it comes to beginners.


Nor did I once. As a worker, I went back to university and got myself an excellent educartion. I'm still a worker.



What's your excuse for remaining ignorant?

Well, it all depends on where you went to college, when you went to college, etc. It's harder for us youth to go to college today more than ever, at least in the US. Also, remember that many posters here are in high school -- as am I -- and we both know that high school education is not very good when it comes to history and very bad when it comes to philosophy (if it even teaches a course on that). Maybe the OP's "excuse" for staying ignorant is just being part of a society that shuns healthy intellectual development. Sure, we all have a great responsibility to learn, but our environments sure don't help. Also, what is ignorant in what he says? It's not correct, or coherent, but that doesn't mean he is ignorant.


Perhaps I can take lessons from you in how to be even more arrogant. You seem to know all about it.

I am greatly sorry a prole like me stood up to your so-smart ways.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Manatee:


Well, you're getting pretty aggressive about the OP's philosophical positions -- which is a bit overreacting, seeing that it's philosophy, not more relevant politics. Plus, the OP is a beginner, so I don't think aggressiveness is practical or nice when it comes to beginners.

Well, no; all I said to him was that I thought he was confusing two things:


I think you are confusing an over-active imagination with philosophy.

Hardly 'aggressive'.

Even my follow-up was hardly 'aggressive', either:


Again, I think you are confusing philosophy with science fiction -- or perhaps with an open confession of your whacky beliefs.

And please do not take this is my way of asking you for yet more of the same.

You'll get more aggression from a dead sheep.

I have already dealt with your point about 'beginners'.


Well, it all depends on where you went to college, when you went to college, etc. It's harder for us youth to go to college today more than ever, at least in the US. Also, remember that many posters here are in high school -- as am I -- and we both know that high school education is not very good when it comes to history and very bad when it comes to philosophy (if it even teaches a course on that). Maybe the OP's "excuse" for staying ignorant is just being part of a society that shuns healthy intellectual development. Sure, we all have a great responsibility to learn, but our environments sure don't help. Also, what is ignorant in what he says? It's not correct, or coherent, but that doesn't mean he is ignorant.

Well, I had no money and I had suffer severe poverty to put myself through university in the 1970s and 1980s.

I am still paying for it.


I am greatly sorry a prole like me stood up to your so-smart ways.

Well, all you did was misunderstand what I was doing.

[CambroNZ]

Ok I have another idea/Belief.
Well I dont believe there is such a thing as "Nothing" becuase if you tried to tell me what Nothing was it would be impossable to describe because "Nothing" does not exist so I believe that once you die there has to be some kind of Conscious Awareness in Existence and Reality even in some sort of changed state. I think the Organic material your body is made of dies and decomposes but the ability to make choices will exist for all eternity. Basically living all these different lives from micro-organisms to galaxies is a way for the Universe to experience and know itself becuase we all started at one point in the big bang and then exploded into a pretty much infinite number of peices.

And another belief I have is that there are other intelligent alien species out there possably even MORE Intelliegnt then humans with the ability for teleportation or faster then the speed of light technology and its possable they could be observing our behaviour, like we are too primitive to interact with becuase we are fighting and arguing with eachother which is pointless because people are just being them, like Rosa Lichenstien, its pointless to argue with them becuase they are just being them, just like I am just being me with my beliefs. I dont have to share your views and you dont have to be down with mine but you cant prove Im seeing the world the way I believe just as its impossable for me to see the world the way you do, its stupid to think we all see the same thing. What something means to you may mean a compeltly different thing for someone else. and if you think interstellar travel and faster then light travel is impossable
People are calculating how to travel through space with the technology we have now. Our methods will change a lot in the future & the distance will not be a big issue. There are several other methods already in development. Imagine travelling to the other side of the world & back just 300 years ago. You'd be looking at months at sea with the risk of storms, shipwreck, mutiny, disease, pirates etc. All very real in those days. Now, people go from London to LA twice a week and think nothing of it. So I also think interstellar travel for advanced aliens would be nothing like the techiques we talk about.

Also some intersting facts about human evolution and development that people dont think about
Its estimated one weeks information in the new york times was more information then someone in the 18th century would of come across in their entire lifetime. So If you went back in time you would be considered higher intelligence but its just normal, we just happen to be consciously aware of far more then they were. Everyone is able to have conversations with eachother and were not even in the same room, let alone in the same country.

If you went back 300 years and said "Hey one day Im going to have a conversation with someone in America, and Im in new zealand" They would think you were crazy even texting is a way of having conversations with people and they dont even have to be in the same room. There are alove over 31 billion searches on the internet EVERY MONTH, in 2006 this number was 2.7 Billion, where were these questioned addressed before Google? and the rate of technological growth is doubling every 2 years where once upon a time it took 500 years to double. also the top 10 in demand jobs this year didnt even EXIST in 2004

Also the years it took to reach a market audience of 50 Million
Radio = 38 years
TV = 13 years
Internet = 4 years
ipod = 3 years
facebook = 2 years

there is also 540,000 words in the English language thats 5X as many as during Shakesperes time so imagine being thrust foward 300 years into the future and talking to someone from America and they had like over a 3 million words in thier language, it would be pretty hard to follow and understand you would only be able to understand 1/6th of thier new evolved language

What I meant earlier about the Universe/planets was that perhaps they have the ability to make choices based on the environment and laws of physics they were given in their creation. Perhaps it was the sun's choice to make as many planets as we have and make sure at least one could have life and from there maybe Earth made the descision using the laws of physics and environment it was given to make the continents form a certain way etc.

Sorry I dont conform to your ideas about philosphy but I walk on my own two feet with my own ideas like everyone else should. so presonally I dont give a crap about people who disagree with me, All I worry about is forming my own beliefs to do with what im actually interested in. In this bodily experience of life this is what I want to believe and this is how I see the world. If I dont see the world the way you do, sorry you have a problem with it, but I really dont care

[khad]

ok I have another idea.

Imagine in there were an infinate number of paralel realities and the phrase of "every action creating an equal and opposite reaction" could be applied to this

For example I decide I want to get a hair cut. the equal and opposite reaction would be the creation of a paralel reality where I choose NOT to have the haircut. but the difference in the reality I saw was the one I made the CHOICE to be in, all becuase I WANTED that particular reality. and I see the VERSIONS of the same people relevant to the frequency of reality that I am on.
You've demonstrated a clear lack of any sort of the rational, logical thinking on which philosophy rests.

Here you attempt to graft Newtonian laws of motion onto the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Needless to say, these are two different systems and mixing and matching them according to your whims doesn't make you any more compelling.


Sorry I dont conform to your ideas about philosphy but I walk on my own two feet with my own ideas like everyone else should. so presonally I dont give a crap about people who disagree with me, All I worry about is forming my own beliefs to do with what im actually interested in. In this bodily experience of life this is what I want to believe and this is how I see the world. If I dont see the world the way you do, sorry you have a problem with it, but I really dont care In fact, this forum doesn't have to tolerate these discussions that don't go anywhere and have no relation to leftwing politics.

This is a verbal warning for spam.

The rest of you, quit being so damn pedantic in a thread that shouldn't be seriously considered in the first place. You're only egging him on.