I know that I seemed duplicitous. I'll probably stick around for a while at least. But consider the addict who cannot quit heroin. Curiosity is my drug, life its side effect, which takes a heavy toll on me. As much as I'd like to 'kick the habit', I can't yet.
In any case, I suppose the development of a person begins with the development of the central nervous system. The material perspective has always been the primary one in my view.
Know anything about alcohol fetal syndrome? Or abortions?
Don't worry the solution to this 'kicking' question will come to us all someday anyway, in the form of the proverbial buckethengest wrote:I know that I seemed duplicitous. I'll probably stick around for a while at least. But consider the addict who cannot quit heroin. Curiosity is my drug, life its side effect, which takes a heavy toll on me. As much as I'd like to 'kick the habit', I can't yet.
Ah yes, that's the Big Question. How does "immaterial" human existence arise from "material" physical existence?
Dunno
but I'm curious, too...Good question. Although, as you could tell, I clearly have no sentimental attachments to life, I have long believed that consciousness is more than the sum of a human's physical parts. I am virtually certain of some kind of spirit that lives past death, but no more than that...sammy wrote: Ah yes, that's the Big Question. How does "immaterial" human existence arise from "material" physical existence?
Dunno
From splendour he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself, a spirit wasteful and pitiless...
-
krx
I can't believe it's Monday morning and I'm reading about apples and East of Eden. I virtually agree with everything that was written here, by 'both' sides.
Apple, first of all, take care of yourself now. Your talk to the priest somehow reminded me of this island. "Live your life as you can, just don't sin too much", that gifted man said just before his peaceful death.
It's wonderful that your partner is so supportive. I'm guessing it's not easy for him either. Don't make things harder now, don't poison yourself with thoughts which are more negative than you may bear.
I thank God that I didn't have to make a choice when I believed in family planning (as in 'planned for later'). I have no idea what that alternative past/present/future would have been.
I mean is it possible that the material arises from the immaterial? (Sorry for the obsessive question, Tertium non datur? The FALL makes me think about light.)
Now I believe we are body, soul, and mind. But I had to go through so many experiences (being so ridiculously wrong so many times) to come to this thought/feeling and I hope I still have a lot of things to live and learn from. Probably to learn that I've been wrong with this and that, but I'll have to live with myself. Somehow.
As Sammy said, for each of us, Timshell!
PS: Apple, if you alredy did what you wanted to do, its a sacrifice. By the way you wrote about it, it wasn't something you would do without blinking. If the sacrifice is done, take care of the rest of you. Two wrongs don't make a right. I have no idea what it would be like to be in your shoes now. That's all I can say, take care!
Apple, first of all, take care of yourself now. Your talk to the priest somehow reminded me of this island. "Live your life as you can, just don't sin too much", that gifted man said just before his peaceful death.
It's wonderful that your partner is so supportive. I'm guessing it's not easy for him either. Don't make things harder now, don't poison yourself with thoughts which are more negative than you may bear.
I thank God that I didn't have to make a choice when I believed in family planning (as in 'planned for later'). I have no idea what that alternative past/present/future would have been.
I wonder if its the right vector theresammy wrote: Ah yes, that's the Big Question. How does "immaterial" human existence arise from "material" physical existence?
Dunno
I mean is it possible that the material arises from the immaterial? (Sorry for the obsessive question, Tertium non datur? The FALL makes me think about light.)Now I believe we are body, soul, and mind. But I had to go through so many experiences (being so ridiculously wrong so many times) to come to this thought/feeling and I hope I still have a lot of things to live and learn from. Probably to learn that I've been wrong with this and that, but I'll have to live with myself. Somehow.
As Sammy said, for each of us, Timshell!
PS: Apple, if you alredy did what you wanted to do, its a sacrifice. By the way you wrote about it, it wasn't something you would do without blinking. If the sacrifice is done, take care of the rest of you. Two wrongs don't make a right. I have no idea what it would be like to be in your shoes now. That's all I can say, take care!
Last edited by krx on Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hengest wrote:I am virtually certain of some kind of spirit that lives past death, but no more than that...
fred wrote:is it possible that the material arises from the immaterial? ...
Now I believe we are body, soul, and mind.
Okay, not really to the point but here goes.
My personal opinion (and yes this is just an opinion, so please do not expect me to prove this anyone) is that when you look at the heart of things so to speak, the world is a material one, and that we do not have a 'soul', spirit, or anything else that would somehow 'survive' death.
However we do genuinely experience consciousness, our self or 'inner being', our mind, call it what you will... what I've never grasped is why it wouldn't be possible that these do not actually 'exist' as somehow separate from our body (in purely material sense), but instead are, let's say, emergent properties of a very complex but an essentially physical/chemical entity. i.e. our material body.
In other words I'm just wondering why this particular option would be somehow less plausible, or less possible than, say, belief* in the existence of (an) immaterial being(s), a substanceless 'soul', reincarnation, and what have you.
Especially so because the vague commonplace "everything is possible" is so often used in defence of the (apparently) more 'spiritual' views. So much that it should maybe be rewritten as "everything -except the opposite of what I believe- is possible"
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending naïve materialism, nor would I ever maintain that things like beliefs, values, ethics etc would be "useless". Nor that whether or not to have an abortion would be 'all the same'. On the contrary. what do I know?
Except that these issues are all interesting and valid from the point of view of human existence and experience, no matter how we perceive them to exist - and even if we allow for the possibility that our ramblings, moral choices and deeds are cosmically speaking totally insignificant, I don't think they are that to us as people.Quasi-philosophical seizure over
Caveat - for the sake of the argument, I would define 'knowledge' as 'well-founded belief' as opposed to 'credo quia absurdum' kind of belief. These issues WILL very quickly reel towards hurting someone's religious views
- not a thing welcome on this forum, and rightly so.-
krx
This is about kids and metaphysics. I no specialist in either. But fate had it that I should re-write something about the latter for the former. Which is extremely annoying for me (and I agree there should be no reason for any of you to become a part of the annoyance. So please don't read if you have better things to do).
So... uncharted waters. And here is where beliefs shape the unthinkable.
I can't think of anything I know in the real world which is not matter, energy (including potential energy), *and* information, all of them at the same time. For me it started with the paradox of light (thanks to the Finnish winter). Needless to say, I'm not a specialist in physics or metaphysics. I just like to walk in the forest and wonder. Kids ask. I don't have kids, I don't have answers. I have questions of my own. Would kids accept that? Not really. Would a written text for such kids allow that, certainly not. I'm not allowed to use footnotes with whatever I believe may be significant, including proper names (which are often significant in children's literature). So I try to deal with them in the text. Somehow. Using the etymological dictionary to control some of the connotations, matching the appearance of some words to draw attention to some detail at the meaning level. Lame. But that's all I can do.
My problem is rather not to have ready-made answers and blurt them out without thinking how the kids would take them. So I wonder. I had to ask somebody what's the proof of potential energy (I've been through some physics in high school, mechanics, whatever, couldn't remember anything that would have answered my question). And here's what he said, briefly, 'gravity is seen by some (see below!) as a property of the time-space continuum'. Gravity is a property?... One of the main representations of anything material is its weigh. Maybe before color or smell or tactile impressions. I don't know. So that important thing was only a property, some specialists say. And nowadays you have to listen to specialists, as you also have to think things over, on your own.
And here's a quote:
"Einstein's theory of general relativity, in which gravitation is an attribute of curved spacetime instead of being due to a force propagated between bodies. In Einstein's theory, masses distort spacetime in their vicinity, and other particles move in trajectories determined by the geometry of spacetime. This allowed a description of the motions of light and mass that was consistent with all available observations."
Some days later, I guess, I found out about another thing which is intriguing for me, that now there is such a thing as a theory of everything (compare with the former theory of relativity). And I think this is funny. I need to know such things for kids. They ask and their mind is the most intimidating I can think of. I wouldn't say they are insignificant, cosmically or personally, on the contrary. They are significant at both levels, to me, because our world is just a part of a larger world (the limits of which are inconceivable to us, and funnily so). In our (pre-Christian) folklore great celebrations always started from the great cycles in the objective/outer/cosmic world. Before those holidays people would have to perform rituals in order to find their harmony (physical+mental+spiritual) with this outer cosmos. Which was perceivable as a material thing and it visibly influenced their lives as a material thing.
And during those holidays the 'skies' (plural from sky) would open and the 'alignment' of inner time and cosmic time would have been more likely than in 'ordinary' time (not during such holidays).
So I perceive it as a resonance of the whole of our being (which I perceive as threefold, but only if I try to analyze it - when I simply contemplate it, I can't think/believe/see anything that is not matter+energy+information).
That's why I cared about April/Prier to the point of becoming an absurd interlocutor, for which I apologize again.
That's why I obsessively go back to our past and to the ageless folklore, so that I can move on somehow, without lying to those kids I'll never meet.
That is precisely what I asked by that annoying third alternative for the question 'Which one came first?'. I can't think which one came first *and*, consequently or not, it's hard for me to think which would last longer.sammy wrote:what I've never grasped is why it wouldn't be possible that these do not actually 'exist' as somehow separate from our body (in purely material sense), but instead are, let's say, emergent properties of a very complex but an essentially physical/chemical entity. i.e. our material body.
So... uncharted waters. And here is where beliefs shape the unthinkable.
I couldn't agree more. Sometimes we can't bring proof of some of our beliefs, which does not make them less important to us. Anything, any system/model, needs to be based on some axiom(s), I suppose. If our axioms differ, that can be perceived as a detail. Huge, maybe, but still detail since we all have some axiomatic beliefs, and to me that's what counts. The very need to believe is a shared axiom. Overwhelmingly so.My personal opinion (and yes this is just an opinion, so please do not expect me to prove this anyone)
I can't think of anything I know in the real world which is not matter, energy (including potential energy), *and* information, all of them at the same time. For me it started with the paradox of light (thanks to the Finnish winter). Needless to say, I'm not a specialist in physics or metaphysics. I just like to walk in the forest and wonder. Kids ask. I don't have kids, I don't have answers. I have questions of my own. Would kids accept that? Not really. Would a written text for such kids allow that, certainly not. I'm not allowed to use footnotes with whatever I believe may be significant, including proper names (which are often significant in children's literature). So I try to deal with them in the text. Somehow. Using the etymological dictionary to control some of the connotations, matching the appearance of some words to draw attention to some detail at the meaning level. Lame. But that's all I can do.
My problem is rather not to have ready-made answers and blurt them out without thinking how the kids would take them. So I wonder. I had to ask somebody what's the proof of potential energy (I've been through some physics in high school, mechanics, whatever, couldn't remember anything that would have answered my question). And here's what he said, briefly, 'gravity is seen by some (see below!) as a property of the time-space continuum'. Gravity is a property?... One of the main representations of anything material is its weigh. Maybe before color or smell or tactile impressions. I don't know. So that important thing was only a property, some specialists say. And nowadays you have to listen to specialists, as you also have to think things over, on your own.
And here's a quote:
"Einstein's theory of general relativity, in which gravitation is an attribute of curved spacetime instead of being due to a force propagated between bodies. In Einstein's theory, masses distort spacetime in their vicinity, and other particles move in trajectories determined by the geometry of spacetime. This allowed a description of the motions of light and mass that was consistent with all available observations."
Some days later, I guess, I found out about another thing which is intriguing for me, that now there is such a thing as a theory of everything (compare with the former theory of relativity). And I think this is funny. I need to know such things for kids. They ask and their mind is the most intimidating I can think of.
Especially so because the vague commonplace "everything is possible" is so often used in defence of the (apparently) more 'spiritual' views. So much that it should maybe be rewritten as "everything -except the opposite of what I believe- is possible"
Not sure if you are referring to meeven if we allow for the possibility that our ramblings, moral choices and deeds are cosmically speaking totally insignificant, I don't think they are that to us as people.
I wouldn't say they are insignificant, cosmically or personally, on the contrary. They are significant at both levels, to me, because our world is just a part of a larger world (the limits of which are inconceivable to us, and funnily so). In our (pre-Christian) folklore great celebrations always started from the great cycles in the objective/outer/cosmic world. Before those holidays people would have to perform rituals in order to find their harmony (physical+mental+spiritual) with this outer cosmos. Which was perceivable as a material thing and it visibly influenced their lives as a material thing.And during those holidays the 'skies' (plural from sky) would open and the 'alignment' of inner time and cosmic time would have been more likely than in 'ordinary' time (not during such holidays).
So I perceive it as a resonance of the whole of our being (which I perceive as threefold, but only if I try to analyze it - when I simply contemplate it, I can't think/believe/see anything that is not matter+energy+information).
That's why I cared about April/Prier to the point of becoming an absurd interlocutor, for which I apologize again.
That's why I obsessively go back to our past and to the ageless folklore, so that I can move on somehow, without lying to those kids I'll never meet.
Same here. Thanks for sharing!Quasi-philosophical seizure over
I feel that being a computer science major probably offers some insight in this particular issue. There is something special that distinguishes machines that appear to think and animals that really think, and I personally believe that is partly beyond the physical Universe. In other words, I find the idea of a lump of watery, fatty cells that send messages with electrical impulses thinking autonomously somewhat implausible. It's a fine machine, but it needs an operator. The operator is somewhere else. As such, I don't think there will ever be a true replica of natural intelligence, only increasingly close approximations over time.sammy wrote: However we do genuinely experience consciousness, our self or 'inner being', our mind, call it what you will... what I've never grasped is why it wouldn't be possible that these do not actually 'exist' as somehow separate from our body (in purely material sense), but instead are, let's say, emergent properties of a very complex but an essentially physical/chemical entity. i.e. our material body.
In other words I'm just wondering why this particular option would be somehow less plausible, or less possible than, say, belief* in the existence of (an) immaterial being(s), a substanceless 'soul', reincarnation, and what have you.
Also only my opinion. I obviously wouldn't want it taught in a science class or anything like that ...
From splendour he fell through arrogance to contempt for all things save himself, a spirit wasteful and pitiless...
Well yes I too find it hard to believe, and needless to say I'd have no idea if you asked me how it could happen... my point however was not that but this: why should we think of the "material" option as "impossible" or "implausible" whilst, at the same time, we somehow should think it not impossible / not implausible that there could exist an incorporeal soul, angels, etc (of which we truly 'know' much, much less than, say, of the electrochemical functions of the brain!)...hengest wrote:I find the idea of a lump of watery, fatty cells that send messages with electrical impulses thinking autonomously somewhat implausible.
It's almost as if something that is completely inexplicable were by some sleight or reason MORE possible or plausible than something that we largely, but not quite, understand!
At least we KNOW that it is a lump of watery, fatty cells with electrical impulses. It's a start
Of the other options... we 'know' nothing of the sort.Finnmoms post make me so angry!
It was posted about a week after Apple had her appointment, therefore there was nothing Finnmom could say to change things. The deed had been done. Apple had already expressed her mental instability and I think that most of us believe her based on some of the things she was saying in her posts. I don't see how Finnmoms posts could serve any other purpose than driving an already depressed woman further into depression. And Finnmom, depression can be a life threatening disorder.
When reading Apple's posts there were things I would have liked to say to her too, but since I had also read the posts after her appointment but now it is best that I leave those things unsaid.
I offer my support to Apple. I know from the experience of friends that an abortion can take a long time to come to terms with, and I know from my own experience the difficulties of depression.
Finnmom, I hope your comments haven't damaged another life.
It was posted about a week after Apple had her appointment, therefore there was nothing Finnmom could say to change things. The deed had been done. Apple had already expressed her mental instability and I think that most of us believe her based on some of the things she was saying in her posts. I don't see how Finnmoms posts could serve any other purpose than driving an already depressed woman further into depression. And Finnmom, depression can be a life threatening disorder.
When reading Apple's posts there were things I would have liked to say to her too, but since I had also read the posts after her appointment but now it is best that I leave those things unsaid.
I offer my support to Apple. I know from the experience of friends that an abortion can take a long time to come to terms with, and I know from my own experience the difficulties of depression.
Finnmom, I hope your comments haven't damaged another life.