Does a seperate "self" exist independent of it's space & time?

[Agent327]

Men live on lands. Imagining other lands is not so much of a stretch. I'm not going to get into the man vs. machine debate. And yes, of course men create stories to present themselves with problems/challenges. It's one of the principle ways to motivate oneself (or others).

That's not what Atlantis is about. People have wondered ever since Plato wrote the story, whether he referred to an actual place, or whether it's just fantasy. (Perhaps Moore's Utopia suits your arguement better.)

My point is that all ideas have roots in the physical world.

Obviously.

Salvidore Dali can paint pictures that defy natural laws but had her never seen a hand, a clock or a face he could not have combined them. Creativity is putting things together in new ways, not creating something out of nothing.

Again: obvious, but again: bad example, as Dalí also painted things that simply didn't exist - as do many painters. Many composers create music that didn't exist. So yes, creation is indeed making something out of nothing.

Tell me who can imagine a world with nonexistant colours, or better, a world where colours, brightness and contrast are nonexistant while the world is the same. And no, that does not mean total darkness.

Also, I don't want to repeat myself. Ideas consist of elements only from our world. They aren't otherworldy.

Colours is easy: they are the result of light breaking (prism effect). Many animals do not see colours, only certain colours or don't see at all, or live precisely in total darkness.

And ideas can very well be otherworldy; prime example: God. (Also, the whole sci-fi and fantasy genres are "otherwordly" in theme.)

 

[Angst]

Actually, I have a rather dim view of the human mind. So I don't understand why you keep going off on rants about stuff that I never said. What am I supposed to say in reply? Are you even sure you're talking to me? Hello...?

Houston, we have a problem...

I never ranted at you? I was blunt when you were.

Also, your view on the human mind, or then, correctedly said, some human ideas, is very positive.

Ah, there you are.

I'd like to know the chemical composition of justice, please.

How should I know? Science isn't there yet. Everything is made of numbers anywas Also, it's still obvious that you don't get me anyways, and I don't want to repeat myself over again, especially when you admit you don't get me anyways. It's proven, however, that emotions are registered in your brain as chemicals in some way I don't quite remember because it's too technical for me to use. Human ethics, instincts, emotions, are in the end just numbers in your head.

How did I do so?

"Ideas are eternal and not of the world of space/time."

I can't really reply much if I don't know what to make of most of what you're saying.

Oh, so you just don't get what I'm saying? My mistake perhaps, but then I won't bother further trying to.

Actually, I made no such assumption. So your assumption that I'm just stupid and can't argue with you is really funny.

"I don't understand any of this. I think..." - Basing any claim on paragraphs you don't get isn't a claim at all. And then you said that strawman thing to me, which usually correlates with "You are not as good as me anyways", to which I responded with the murky comment about your improper point. And I get you, really. I don't think you're stupid. I'm just very aware that you don't get me.

Sure. Laters, Mr. "spiritual realm".

PS: If you want to make claims, be sure your claims stand up to the simplest of questioning.

This is just trolling.

Colours is easy: they are the result of light breaking (prism effect). Many animals do not see colours, only certain colours or don't see at all, or live precisely in total darkness.

And ideas can very well be otherworldy; prime example: God. (Also, the whole sci-fi and fantasy genres are "otherwordly" in theme.)

You totally didn't get me there. I don't think I'm reaching you. Darkness is still a colour, technically. You can't imagine how it is to live without vision in a place where darkness doesn't exist, and the same works when nothing else we know of does. I can neither.

 

[Agent327]

You totally didn't get me there. I don't think I'm reaching you. Darkness is still a colour, technically. You can't imagine how it is to live without vision in a place where darkness doesn't exist, and the same works when nothing else we know of does. I can neither.

I am sorry, darkness (or blackness) is not a colour; like white(ness) it is the absence of colour.

Anyway, colours apart, the prime example of an idea outside time and space - thoroughly ignored here - is God. "It is said" he created time and space - out of nothing. (The physicalist equivalent: the Big Bang.)

 

[Angst]

I am sorry, darkness (or blackness) is not a colour; like white(ness) it is the absence of colour.

Anyway, colours apart, the prime example of an idea outside time and space - thoroughly ignored here - is God. "It is said" he created time and space - out of nothing. (The physicalist equivalent: the Big Bang.)

You get my point though.

But the idea is still primarily bound to our world; it is represented through avatars; although I believe God is something else than an idea. I don't even consider myself that religious, but I think God is present; not as the avatar though. Ask me for details if you want. The subject is picky with me because in my worldview.

But I understand what you're saying. I still don't agree, but it's mostly because I don't consider God an idea, based in my worldview as ideas belonging to reality, while zero and the infinite is something else.

 

[Agent327]

Interesting. I was just thinking of invisible light. Does it have a colour? We might call it infrared, but that's just a name. Perhaps a useful metaphor for "God" (also "invisible").

Another thought: if there were no time, there would be no light - as light is actually oscillation (crudely said), i.e. movement. (Quite theoretically ofcourse, as movement also implies space. Cute illustration of how space and time are in the same equation, BTW.)

And yes, I got your point - just thought it an interesting point of discussion.

 

[Greizer85]

ideas belong to reality, while zero and the infinite is something else.

Just because we cannot fully comprehend some idea doesn't mean that it isn't one. Sure, I can't wrap my head around infinity, but I can still vaguely envision it and know that with a better brain/different kind of consciousness I could comprehend the idea of it fully. Some say that this applies to God as well, although it may be considered heretical to try and 'grok' His Majesty, so to speak.

 

[Narz]

I don't think anyone is disputing that ideas exist within the context of the material world and our experience of it. One may, but I don't think anyone here is doing that. That, however, is far from saying that ideas are physical, which is a loony thought.

Ideas are based upon & dependent on a physical reality. Without physical reality formulating & explaining an idea would be impossible. Why is this so hard to see?

Huh?

Just playfully responding to your non-sequitur with a few of my own.

Are you really taking such descriptives literally? Because if you do, you're the one romantisizing.

You missed the point. People speak that way. Much of our speech is in analogies. There is no "pure realm of ideas", things only make sense in their relation to other things. An idea/concept is a thing usually describing other things &/or relationships between those things. Outside of context within the material world an idea is nothing.

Please refute with an idea that has meaning outside the world of things & relationships if you can! You're making the positive claim that ideas exist in a realm all their own from every other thing in the universe. If you can support it please do so, otherwise you'll have to understand, or at least accept, my skepticism.

 

[Agent327]

Ideas are based upon & dependent on a physical reality. Without physical reality formulating & explaining an idea would be impossible. Why is this so hard to see?

This seems so self-evident that I wonder why this keeps being brought up. (It's like "If we didn't exist, we wouldn't think"; no one argues with that - I hope...)

 

[aelf]

I never ranted at you? I was blunt when you were.

Also, your view on the human mind, or then, correctedly said, some human ideas, is very positive.

Where did you get that from?

How should I know? Science isn't there yet. Everything is made of numbers anywas Also, it's still obvious that you don't get me anyways, and I don't want to repeat myself over again, especially when you admit you don't get me anyways. It's proven, however, that emotions are registered in your brain as chemicals in some way I don't quite remember because it's too technical for me to use. Human ethics, instincts, emotions, are in the end just numbers in your head.

So now emotions are numbers?

You know, being the one who is making fantastic claims, it's quite hilarious that you expect people to understand clearly what you mean and how it makes sense.

"Ideas are eternal and not of the world of space/time."[

I don't know if ideas are eternal. Maybe they are. But did I say that, or did you just make that up?

It's pretty clear to me, though, that they are not physical, even though they are derived from the physical world.

Oh, so you just don't get what I'm saying? My mistake perhaps, but then I won't bother further trying to.

Alright, genius.

"I don't understand any of this. I think..." - Basing any claim on paragraphs you don't get isn't a claim at all. And then you said that strawman thing to me, which usually correlates with "You are not as good as me anyways", to which I responded with the murky comment about your improper point. And I get you, really. I don't think you're stupid. I'm just very aware that you don't get me.

Alright, wise guy.

This is just trolling.

Saying that your claims need to stand up to the most superficial scrutiny is trolling?

You missed the point. People speak that way. Much of our speech is in analogies. There is no "pure realm of ideas", things only make sense in their relation to other things. An idea/concept is a thing usually describing other things &/or relationships between those things. Outside of context within the material world an idea is nothing.

Please refute with an idea that has meaning outside the world of things & relationships if you can! You're making the positive claim that ideas exist in a realm all their own from every other thing in the universe. If you can support it please do so, otherwise you'll have to understand, or at least accept, my skepticism.

I do think that things don't only make sense in relation to other things (and, IIRC, some deep ecologists too, for that matter), but that's beside the point. Nowhere in this thread, I think, have I posited that there is a pure realm of ideas. I'm not sure if that's a necessary step that I have to make in saying that ideas are not physical. Ideas are not physical because they do not consist of matter. The chemical in your brain that stimulates certain feelings and thoughts about the idea of justice is not the idea of justice itself. Ideas are abstract.

Whether there is a realm of ideas that can exist independently of the material world is a different question. For the matter, I don't think it's completely independent, but neither is it entirely dependent. But, again, that's irrelevant. All I'm doing here is to point out the obvious - an idea is not material and is therefore not subject to the laws of nature. There's no law of physics that can affect the idea of justice. That's good enough an evidence, I think.

Ideas are based upon & dependent on a physical reality. Without physical reality formulating & explaining an idea would be impossible. Why is this so hard to see?

This seems so self-evident that I wonder why this keeps being brought up. (It's like "If we didn't exist, we wouldn't think"; no one argues with that - I hope...)

Indeed, for my part, I've already said the same. However, it doesn't mean that ideas are physical. I think that's self-evident too.

 

[Angst]

Where did you get that from?

You. Saying that the human mind is able to connect with anything otherworldly is positively weighed.

So now emotions are numbers?

Yes, since our brain isn't some kind of otherworldy connecting entity. It's technomeat. When the brain picks up information in our reality, that information is stored as a chemical file inside the brain, used together with the other chemicals already stored to act. Your question "Wat is the chemical makeup of justice" is practically unanswerable because the idea of justice varies from person to person, since each person has different memories and files stored in the brain to act from. Justice is just a mixup of different primal instincts ensuring our own well-being and the survival of our species anyways.

You know, being the one who is making fantastic claims, it's quite hilarious that you expect people to understand clearly what you mean and how it makes sense.

Because you're clearly not making fantastic claims when promoting eternity of anything outside reality, space and time. Hypocrite at best, but I least use reasonable arguments. You not getting it is another case. Again, English isn't my first language, so the problems might lie there.

And what is up with the rising tendency to bother me instead of my arguments?

I don't know if ideas are eternal. Maybe they are. But did I say that, or did you just make that up?

When something isn't bound to time, it's either eternal or nonexistant. I'm not making anything up, I'm telling you where your logic fails.

It's pretty clear to me, though, that they are not physical, even though they are derived from the physical world.

Chemicals.

Alright, genius.

Alright, wise guy.

Troll.

Troll.

I said the mistake probably didn't lie with you silly. Stop acting like I'm pouring nasty liquids down your throat. I didn't even put up offence there.

Saying that your claims need to stand up to the most superficial scrutiny is trolling?

To quote a random girl: It's not what you said, it's the way you said it.

 

[Angst]

Just because we cannot fully comprehend some idea doesn't mean that it isn't one. Sure, I can't wrap my head around infinity, but I can still vaguely envision it and know that with a better brain/different kind of consciousness I could comprehend the idea of it fully. Some say that this applies to God as well, although it may be considered heretical to try and 'grok' His Majesty, so to speak.

'Grok'? But, yeah, you're actually close to somewhere I'd like to see you be. Is the infinite an idea or something else?

Interesting. I was just thinking of invisible light. Does it have a colour? We might call it infrared, but that's just a name. Perhaps a useful metaphor for "God" (also "invisible").

Another thought: if there were no time, there would be no light - as light is actually oscillation (crudely said), i.e. movement. (Quite theoretically ofcourse, as movement also implies space. Cute illustration of how space and time are in the same equation, BTW.)

And yes, I got your point - just thought it an interesting point of discussion.

Hmm, invisible light is still readable with earthly instruments. I don't think God is present in reality, if any it's the other way around, as I said earlier.

 

[aelf]

You. Saying that the human mind is able to connect with anything otherworldly is positively weighed.

Wait, what? Define "otherworldly". As it is you're just throwing in terms like "spiritual realm" as if all of those mean the same thing.

Besides, I never claimed that ideas do not belong to this world.

Yes, since our brain isn't some kind of otherworldy connecting entity. It's technomeat. When the brain picks up information in our reality, that information is stored as a chemical file inside the brain, used together with the other chemicals already stored to act. Your question "Wat is the chemical makeup of justice" is practically unanswerable because the idea of justice varies from person to person, since each person has different memories and files stored in the brain to act from. Justice is just a mixup of different primal instincts ensuring our own well-being and the survival of our species anyways.

How does that make ideas, emotions or our brain simply numbers?

Because you're clearly not making fantastic claims when promoting eternity of anything outside reality, space and time. Hypocrite at best, but I least use reasonable arguments. You not getting it is another case. Again, English isn't my first language, so the problems might lie there.

When did I promote the eternity of anything?

And what is up with the rising tendency to bother me instead of my arguments?

I wish I had some real arguments to bother with. As it is I just spend my time telling you how you're making things up.

When something isn't bound to time, it's either eternal or nonexistant. I'm not making anything up, I'm telling you where your logic fails.

Bold claim, and not meaningful at all here. Talk about logic fail.

Chemicals.

What is the chemical composition of justice?

If you know it's a chemical, can't you at least identify which chemical?

Troll.

Troll.

I said the mistake probably didn't lie with you silly. Stop acting like I'm pouring nasty liquids down your throat. I didn't even put up offence there.

What do you want me to say in reply to your attempt at establishing how sophisticated and deep you are?

To quote a random girl: It's not what you said, it's the way you said it.

Aww, I'm sorry that you're sensitive. But a firm retort really isn't anything out of the ordinary.

 

[Angst]

Wait, what? Define "otherworldly". As it is you're just throwing in terms like "spiritual realm" as if all of those mean the same thing.

Besides, I never claimed that ideas do not belong to this world.

Here we are again. This world is taking place in space/time. Anything else that isn't in this world isn't present, isn't real.

How does that make ideas, emotions or our brain simply numbers?

The difference between 1 and 7*0-2^(9)+2(1-3) is obvious - but in the end both consist of numbers. You consist of matter and energy. Those two each have a material value, can be measured - as everything withing space/time can - in numbers. Your thoughts are stored in your brain as chemicals, that can be measured, in numbers.

When did I promote the eternity of anything?

I just said it.

I wish I had some real arguments to bother with. As it is I just spend my time telling you how you're making things up.

Spoiler :

Just as relevant as that line.

Bold claim, and not meaningful at all here. Talk about logic fail.

It is meaningful. You are arguing for the philosophy that ideas exist independent from space or time, because their essence is eternal. Eternity means that it isn't bound to time, it doesn't have a starting point or an ending - it's always there. And you know what? Your juices aren't always there.

What is the chemical composition of justice?

If you know it's a chemical, can't you at least identify which chemical?

I just answered this.

What do you want me to say in reply to your attempt at establishing how sophisticated and deep you are?

Again, you're acting like an idiot. If you cared to read what I'm saying, I am very open about the problems possibly residing not in you being stupid (Hence: I don't think you are, the problems lie elsewhere), but instead that I could possibly have difficulties explaining stuff in English, or anything else.

Aww, I'm sorry that you're sensitive. But a firm retort really isn't anything out of the ordinary.

Sure. Laters, Mr. "spiritual realm".

You see how necessary that line is to prove your point? People online acting rash on the base of their anonymous face are trolls. Just stick with saying things you would in real life mkay? This is a forum. Good forums consist of brilliant people. Brilliant people don't need faeces thrown after their opponents to have their opponents think they're right.

Actually, because of this weird discussion, I'm somewhat off track of what we discussed initially. Can you remind me of that instead of just write poop this time?

 

[Agent327]

Yes, since our brain isn't some kind of otherworldy connecting entity. It's technomeat. When the brain picks up information in our reality, that information is stored as a chemical file inside the brain, used together with the other chemicals already stored to act. Your question "Wat is the chemical makeup of justice" is practically unanswerable because the idea of justice varies from person to person, since each person has different memories and files stored in the brain to act from. Justice is just a mixup of different primal instincts ensuring our own well-being and the survival of our species anyways.

Hm. Now explain religion.

To quote a random girl: It's not what you said, it's the way you said it.

Your random girl paraphrased Nietzsche.

Hmm, invisible light is still readable with earthly instruments. I don't think God is present in reality, if any it's the other way around, as I said earlier.

Infrared, yes, the light in a black hole, no. "I think God is present in reality" is a similar statement. To the one it is fact, to the other mere statement.

 

[Narz]

Whether there is a realm of ideas that can exist independently of the material world is a different question. For the matter, I don't think it's completely independent, but neither is it entirely dependent. But, again, that's irrelevant. All I'm doing here is to point out the obvious - an idea is not material and is therefore not subject to the laws of nature. There's no law of physics that can affect the idea of justice. That's good enough an evidence, I think.

Nothing obvious about it. Everything is subject to the laws of nature/physics. The idea of justice is dependent on the brains of those who think it. No minds to think of justice, no justice. Also, the "pure idea" doesn't really exist anywhere at all ever (let alone existing in a steady state always). Everytime I think about justice (just like everytime I think about pie or my girlfriend or baseball), my understanding of it is a little different. A thousand people could think about justice & they'd all have a slightly different understanding of it. Ask them to think about it fifteen minutes later & there understanding even then will have altered ever so slightly (or perhaps significantly if given a piece of propaganda to ponder in those 15 minutes).

Yes, since our brain isn't some kind of otherworldy connecting entity. It's technomeat. When the brain picks up information in our reality, that information is stored as a chemical file inside the brain, used together with the other chemicals already stored to act. Your question "Wat is the chemical makeup of justice" is practically unanswerable because the idea of justice varies from person to person, since each person has different memories and files stored in the brain to act from. Justice is just a mixup of different primal instincts ensuring our own well-being and the survival of our species anyways.

Well said.

 

[aelf]

Here we are again. This world is taking place in space/time. Anything else that isn't in this world isn't present, isn't real.

Define "real".

The difference between 1 and 7*0-2^(9)+2(1-3) is obvious - but in the end both consist of numbers. You consist of matter and energy. Those two each have a material value, can be measured - as everything withing space/time can - in numbers. Your thoughts are stored in your brain as chemicals, that can be measured, in numbers.

By that reasoning, commodities only have exchange value. But we know that they have use values too. A chair is not simply $50, or however much it costs in the market. A chair is a chair. Ergo, just because something is measured by some unit doesn't mean that the thing consists of that unit.

I just said it.

It is meaningful. You are arguing for the philosophy that ideas exist independent from space or time, because their essence is eternal. Eternity means that it isn't bound to time, it doesn't have a starting point or an ending - it's always there. And you know what? Your juices aren't always there.

Okay, I looked up and down the thread. I do not see where I said the essence of ideas are eternal.

Could you just stop this? I'm tempted to conclude some things about your level of intelligence simply because this is getting so stupid and yet you persist.

Spoiler :

Just as relevant as that line.

It is relevant cause you're claiming that I say all sorts of things I'm not saying.

I just answered this.

You answered that you don't know. Can I just conclude, therefore, that you're fantasizing?

If you knew anything, at least a few examples would be forthcoming, instead of you merely retreating into the weak "This question is unanswerable!" reply.

Again, you're acting like an idiot. If you cared to read what I'm saying, I am very open about the problems possibly residing not in you being stupid (Hence: I don't think you are, the problems lie elsewhere), but instead that I could possibly have difficulties explaining stuff in English, or anything else.

Yeah, look who's getting personal now

You see how necessary that line is to prove your point? People online acting rash on the base of their anonymous face are trolls. Just stick with saying things you would in real life mkay?

How do you know I don't say stuff like that in real life? I guarantee you that I do, because I'm just very sarcastic. But during a discussion like this, people in RL also don't tend to try very hard at pretending that they're more sophisticated, outrightly lie about when what the person they're talking to just said and ironically accuse him of doing something that they are doing more than anyone, so it doesn't happen very often. Or perhaps I just don't tend to get into a discussion with people like that and don't even hang around them.

This is a forum. Good forums consist of brilliant people. Brilliant people don't need faeces thrown after their opponents to have their opponents think they're right.

I'm sorry if you perpetually think that I'm not brilliant enough for you

Actually, because of this weird discussion, I'm somewhat off track of what we discussed initially. Can you remind me of that instead of just write poop this time?

So you're arguing with me but you don't know what we're arguing about? No wonder I'm lost

 

[aelf]

Nothing obvious about it. Everything is subject to the laws of nature/physics. The idea of justice is dependent on the brains of those who think it. No minds to think of justice, no justice. Also, the "pure idea" doesn't really exist anywhere at all ever (let alone existing in a steady state always). Everytime I think about justice (just like everytime I think about pie or my girlfriend or baseball), my understanding of it is a little different. A thousand people could think about justice & they'd all have a slightly different understanding of it. Ask them to think about it fifteen minutes later & there understanding even then will have altered ever so slightly (or perhaps significantly if given a piece of propaganda to ponder in those 15 minutes).

Doesn't this also depend on what idea we're talking about in the first place? Someone brought up the idea of the perfect circle. Does that idea change if our brain is made of copper instead of grey matter? In fact, even the idea of justice might not change. It usually changes when it comes into contact with other ideas. That's why people's perceptions of justice can be different.

And, once again, I say that ideas are tied to our existence. That still does not mean that they are physical things like we are.

I don't really think pure ideas exist on some higher plane or other. I just think that ideas are not physical because they are not subject to the laws of nature, and the neurons and the chemical in our brains are not synonymous with the ideas they carry, maybe like how salt water is not salt. I think these are plain as day.

 

[Narz]

Doesn't this also depend on what idea we're talking about in the first place? Someone brought up the idea of the perfect circle. Does that idea change if our brain is made of copper instead of grey matter? In fact, even the idea of justice might not change. It usually changes when it comes into contact with other ideas. That's why people's perceptions of justice can be different.

And, once again, I say that ideas are tied to our existence. That still does not mean that they are physical things like we are.

I don't really think pure ideas exist on some higher plane or other. I just think that ideas are not physical because they are not subject to the laws of nature, and the neurons and the chemical in our brains are not synonymous with the ideas they carry, maybe like how salt water is not salt. I think these are plain as day.

Whether it's a man thinking of a circle or a machine "thinking" of one there is some sort of physical process going on.

 

[aelf]

Whether it's a man thinking of a circle or a machine "thinking" of one there is some sort of physical process going on.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean the ideas contained in thoughts produced are physical. That really is the bottom line. I think it's very obvious, but if you insist on disagreeing then I can't say much more. I don't know how else to explain it besides in all the ways that I've already tried.

 

[Narz]

Yeah, but that doesn't mean the ideas contained in thought produced are physical. That really is the bottom line. I think it's very obvious, but if you insist on disagreeing then I can't say much more. I don't know how else to explain it besides in all the ways that I've already tried.

Well, I guess that's that then. See you around.