|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:59 pm
My apologies for the redundency of my previous posts, at the time I was without a mind. Simply put, I have a theory for the "ultimate truth" that I think is interesting, but may or may not be logically true, it really depends on your perspective, as always of course. The theory is that thought is what causes all of existence. Not necessarily human thought, or thought from any life form at that, but instead, thought is the basis of all space, matter, time and any concept that can be in existence. The -idea of something- being the center of which it is created. This concept of course seems to be quite out there, logically speaking, so you may relate it to spirituality. But it is based on eastern philosophies, so I implore that it is a logical idea to be considered. What I really think is that cutting edge science today is really pointing in that direction, for instance watch the movie "What The Bleep Do We Know?". It is an interesting documentary style movie indeed.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:39 pm
the only real way to gain truth is through experience. this is possibly why young people have trouble with the truth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:09 am
MyOwnBestCritic but how do I know YOU exist? *head asplode* Whether I exist or not, I really don't care. It won't change the fact that I'm here now. Where ever here is or who ever/what ever I am. But then again, that's just my view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:02 am
Haha, there's this awesome song on one of my chill/house (a certain genre of music) compilation cds and one of the main lyrics goes "Here I am." I dunno, it's pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:09 pm
That's why it's usually prudent, in any debate, to agree upon a set of axioms from which to start off. Axioms are assumptions that are made so that deductive progress made be made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:17 am
MyOwnBestCritic but how do I know YOU exist? *head asplode* Technically you don't, because this is the internet and I could be a super-smart computer program locked up in some guy's lab for all you know. But if you were to meet me face to face, and I were to use the OP's idea of truth to prove truth: You can tell I exist because you can see, smell, touch and hear me. Even if the definitions of seeing and smelling and can be questioned by those who claim we're all in the Matrix or something you can still sense me standing in front of you. Especially when compared to thin air. That is truth, because you couldn't change what you saw. Unless you were insane, and delerious enough to imagine me up. In which case, should you really have been outside? xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:53 pm
Fogwolf Contagious Cure Kanon Vilente abarrach phantomkitsune The only provable truth is 'I think, therefore I am.' Everything else is a series of interconnected and complex theories supported by evidence. How, exactly do you prove that statement? Even if you could prove that "I think", which I doubt you'd be able to prove irrefutably, how do you prove that it implies that "I am"? The statement "I think, therefore I am" is a way overused cliché. Ah I have to agree with you on that point. The only real truth I have seen is from one of our other threads I can never know more than that I exist. There are still ways to prove that you exist other than using that overly used phrase. Existence of consciousness is also proof of the existence of an external world (as you cannot merely be conscious, you must be conscious of something). It isn't possible to ascertain the true nature of yourself, or of the external world, but their existence is actually shown by the "I think, therefore I am" cliché. I don't think it proves the existence of an external world. You can merely be conscious. Consider the variety of experience you can have in imagination - none of this comes directly from the external world, so it is at least possible that consciousness is all there is. You can be conscious of your own conscious existence and the experiential variations within it. But, in response to teh first post, Descartes' cogito is supposed to be that first truth that enables other truths to be built on it - and it doesn't have to be analysed as a premiss and a conclusion. It can be seen as a whole, self evident truth. Consciousness requires you to actually be conscious of something. In other words (at least this is the way I see it), consciousness requires the interaction of two "worlds" to exist. You can't just "exist" either. You have to exist somewhere. This is my interpretation of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:47 pm
Maskani MyOwnBestCritic but how do I know YOU exist? *head asplode* Technically you don't, because this is the internet and I could be a super-smart computer program locked up in some guy's lab for all you know. But if you were to meet me face to face, and I were to use the OP's idea of truth to prove truth: You can tell I exist because you can see, smell, touch and hear me. Even if the definitions of seeing and smelling and can be questioned by those who claim we're all in the Matrix or something you can still sense me standing in front of you. Especially when compared to thin air. That is truth, because you couldn't change what you saw. Unless you were insane, and delerious enough to imagine me up. In which case, should you really have been outside? xp Which brings us into the concept of lucid hallucinations. People on LSD have reported seeing and hearing things, but I'm not sure about touching, smelling, etc. I'll have to look it up. Think for a second on the difference you learned in high school science between "fact" and "observation." Can you see "dead?" No, but you can see blood, feel lack of pulse, hear no breath, and assume "dead." Is what truth we assume based upon facts, or is "dead" really still alive, but just barely hanging on? Yeah, it's a metaphor, but I think in metaphors. The following statement is true. The preceding statement was false. xd Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:34 am
Contagious Cure Consciousness requires you to actually be conscious of something. In other words (at least this is the way I see it), consciousness requires the interaction of two "worlds" to exist. You can't just "exist" either. You have to exist somewhere. This is my interpretation of course. But are we ever conscious of objects outside the mind? When we see, a neural network is activated due to an electrochemical signal from the eye caused by light hitting the retina after bouncing off some object. So what is in the mind, what we see, is really at the end of a fairly odd causal chain, and is merely a representation. So it seems possible that such a representation might exist in a mind without having come from that particular causal chain - as when we dream. Because what we are conscious of is always itself a mental phenomenon. As to whether or not a mind can exist without a location - I think that depends on whether or not the mind is thought of as material or immatierial, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 2:26 am
Fogwolf Contagious Cure Consciousness requires you to actually be conscious of something. In other words (at least this is the way I see it), consciousness requires the interaction of two "worlds" to exist. You can't just "exist" either. You have to exist somewhere. This is my interpretation of course. But are we ever conscious of objects outside the mind? When we see, a neural network is activated due to an electrochemical signal from the eye caused by light hitting the retina after bouncing off some object. So what is in the mind, what we see, is really at the end of a fairly odd causal chain, and is merely a representation. You answered your own question. If it's a representation, then your are conscious of objects in an external world. A representation has to represent something something. Fogwolf So it seems possible that such a representation might exist in a mind without having come from that particular causal chain - as when we dream. Because what we are conscious of is always itself a mental phenomenon. Dreams aren't a world in their own, they're simply a self-repeated rearrangement of the things you've already experienced. Fogwolf As to whether or not a mind can exist without a location - I think that depends on whether or not the mind is thought of as material or immatierial, doesn't it? Without going into some spirituality of supernatural crap, the mind is material and chemical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 5:22 pm
Going back to the OP for one second - My friend and I were talking about how you need one truth to justify another. If this is true, then there must be one "ultimate truth" to justify some truths that justify others... while I agreed with Descartes, she said, "I dunno. Maybe it's God."
And now I've brought in the topic of religion. Sorry. But it's a major factor in a lot of people's lives, I felt that it should be at least be presented as a possibility. *shrug*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:40 am
MyOwnBestCritic Going back to the OP for one second - My friend and I were talking about how you need one truth to justify another. If this is true, then there must be one "ultimate truth" to justify some truths that justify others... while I agreed with Descartes, she said, "I dunno. Maybe it's God." And now I've brought in the topic of religion. Sorry. But it's a major factor in a lot of people's lives, I felt that it should be at least be presented as a possibility. *shrug* If you believed in a religion, then "God exists" would be a very convenient ultimate truth. Like I've said before in this very thread, I'm an Atheist and it often seems to me like many religions are pseudo-sciences made by very intelligent people. What the religions consist of is lots of answers to all the questions that we've never been able to put a satisfactory answer to in the past. So, they're designed to fit in with all the other beliefs of man. So it's only expected that there's an answer to be found in religion to answer this question. You're right that in order for lots of us to be certain of any one truth, there needs to be an ultimate truth in which no doubts lie. That doesn't necessarily mean that there's one out there. I just wanted to make that point. I didn't really get a clear idea of your beliefs so I'm unsure whether you already agreed with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sand From The Future(GTD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 9:54 pm
I have no idea what you're talking about. O_o
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
