Philosophy!

[Dr Frankenollie]

I considered resurrecting the religion thread for this, but it's not too much to do with religion; instead, I want to focus on philosophy in general. I simply want to discuss (and hopefully debate about) different philosophical ideas and concepts, including some that I have recently been turning over in my head.

Basically, I'm wondering if all possible realities or worlds are all equally valid. The material, allegedly real and outward world does not truly exist as we see it - it's merely our brain's interpretation, if you like, of the surrounding environment. But is the environment even there? The interpretation is based on electrical impulses. As many others have theorised, perhaps we're merely brains floating in jars. Perhaps in somewhere like the Matrix. As all our evidence is based on the world around us and therefore our sensual perceptions - and really, how can't it be? - we have to accept that the only thing to definitely exist is one's own mind and consciousness, in some shape or form. Maybe.

If the material world is to be believed, then the consciousness is not a single, elementary thing, but the product of various factors - genes, inherited behaviours, impulses, the brain, the survival instinct, sexual thoughts and feelings, etcetera. Thus, perhaps the consciousness doesn't really exist in the way we think it is. Perhaps, like our interpretation of the surrounding 'real' world, it's a simple illusion to help us sort of grasp a complex concept. Maybe people and personas don't really exist in a scientific, tangible sense. Thus, maybe nothing whatsoever definitely exists. But I digress.

If we accept that there's no definitive proof for the world's existence, then we must regard it as not only 'possible', but on a scale of probability, the same level of probability as any other possible worlds or realities. Just because it seems real doesn't make it so. Is it possible that the lack of sufficient, non-sensual evidence means belief in the 'real' world is just as logical and justifiable as belief in a world generally regarded as fictitious?

[disneyboy20022]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ejEVczA8PLU" frameborder="0"></iframe>

I'm sorry but I couldn't resist

[Disney Duster]

If the material world is to be believed, then the consciousness is not a single, elementary thing, but the product of various factors - genes, inherited behaviours, impulses, the brain, the survival instinct, sexual thoughts and feelings, etcetera.

Can't it be a single thing that just also uses various factors from the material world?

[Dr Frankenollie]

If the material world is to be believed, then the consciousness is not a single, elementary thing, but the product of various factors - genes, inherited behaviours, impulses, the brain, the survival instinct, sexual thoughts and feelings, etcetera.

Can't it be a single thing that just also uses various factors from the material world?

But it doesn't use the various factors. It is the various factors. The brain is your mind, but you can't call it your 'consciousness' or 'soul' because your personality, behaviour and choices are also determined by hormones, genetics and so forth. Hence, I believe that the idea of consciousness as a single, elementary thing is a delusion, because it can be reduced and divided into separate parts.

Anyway, thank you for posting. I was worried no one would join in the discussion.

[Disney Duster]

Okay well all I can say is I'm sorry I'm one of the the only ones posting and yet I strongly disagree with what you're saying. I believe it can be one thing, and possibly be a soul. What if...it's something you aren't realizing. Like, you remove what you think are all the parts, but there's something there all along that you just aren't realizing is also there, using all those parts.

[yamiiguy]

It is impossible to prove the existence of anything, due to the limitations of your senses as well as the fact they they can easily be fooled. As (I think) Kierkegaard said, Descartes' famous "Cogito ergo sum" statement is fallacious in the fact it presupposes the existence of 'I'.

Personally, I subscribe to empiricism as if one has to follow one's senses to really live life. As you no doubt know, there has been a lot of debate in the scientific community about whether or not our universe is merely one in a multiverse - the problem is that this is currently impossible to test experimentally. I recommend Stephen Hawking's recent book The Grand Design which talks about this as well as philosophy and religion.

[Jules]

It would be totally freaking cool if this entire world and all of you were a creation of my imagination. I've thought about this sometimes, myself.

I mean, it would mean my brain even came up with Disney and the WDAS films.

[Disney Duster]

As (I think) Kierkegaard said, Descartes' famous "Cogito ergo sum" statement is fallacious in the fact it presupposes the existence of 'I'.

That saying is still true! At least you know you (I) are alive and therefore exist (am).

[yamiiguy]

As (I think) Kierkegaard said, Descartes' famous "Cogito ergo sum" statement is fallacious in the fact it presupposes the existence of 'I'.

That saying is still true! At least you know you (I) are alive and therefore exist (am).

Well, it's neither true or false - it, like everything else, is unprovable.

[Disney Duster]

I don't know about that. If something being proved must be viewed by something that exists to know it is proved, you know you exist to yourself (no matter whatever yourself is).

[Dr Frankenollie]

I typed up a post and then my computer began to malfunction. Suffice to say, it's gone.

I do see Duster's point, but overall I'm rather uncertain and, if I spend too much time thinking about it, I become even more confused. There is certainly something like a consciousness in me, whether it exists as a single or tangible thing or not, yet perhaps trusting what's in my own mind is about as naïve as trusting what you learn from your senses. After all, along with belief in a consciousness, most of us believe we have free will; it certainly feels that way, yet really it's just a delusion, a delusion greatly controlled by non-sentient factors like the selfish gene. I'm not certain that there is some kind of consciousness and mind in me, but I do believe in it more than I would believe the 'real' world surrounding me.

Due to my aforementioned realisation that the mind is the source of all realities, I feel more lenient towards religious beliefs now. Despite continuous philosophical uncertainty, I now think that anyone can believe whatever they want to believe, as long as they never attempt to enforce them upon someone else. We all have different minds, and therefore different interpretations of reality (to at least some extent; it might be a truly great extent, considering the question "Is your red my red?"), so we should all have different beliefs and live different lifestyles.

[ajmrowland]

What is a fact?

Is it something permanent and eternal that's only seen at the right time under the right circumstances? or is it something that always evolves and changes? I actually believe the former, but that involves separating it from the truth it often supports.

Truth and Lie function in similar ways. It takes two people to make a truth or a lie: one to talk and one to listen. And that often leads to the latter believing. we all repeat a lot of things we are taught and we believe them. And then we keep believing them, convincing ourselves that others will try to lead us off the righteous path even when the road we are on leads to a drop-off or a dead-end. We convince ourselves that we are moving forward and that moving forward is always good and never bad, but then a lie could do the exact same thing.

Cuz when we believe certain things hard enough they become true to us and even true in general. a self-fulfilling prophecy. when certain facts come to light, a truth becomes a lie and a lie becomes truth. And considering evidence and "facts" can be tampered with, it comes down to the fact that a lie is started by a person who knowingly made it up while a truth is claimed by somebody who believes it.

[Disney Duster]

Interesting ajmrowland.

Dr Frankenollie, I'm very happy with some of your conclusions and how you've changed your perception on some things now.