What is the nature of our existence?

[Luc Turpin]

 

13 minutes ago, geordief said:

Or is the meaning of life to make sense of what has no sense?(we can all make sense of what seems  logical, I would  say)

Yes, if life has no meaning, then we are left with making our own sense of, and emphasise rationality and logic in doing so!

.....our own sense of it, and emphasize........

[geordief]

16 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

 

Yes, if life has no meaning, then we are left with making our own sense of, and emphasise rationality and logic in doing so!

.....our own sense of it, and emphasize........

No ,the life we see around us follows logical paths .(animals,trees,humans,societies and the physical universe)

The senselessness I had in mind was the apparent void we come from  at birth and the void we enter after we are finished.

In between we try to understand  what our place is in that context.

I doubt other species entertain these ideas but ,who knows maybe they might.

[Luc Turpin]

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

No ,the life we see around us follows logical paths .(animals,trees,humans,societies and the physical universe)

The senselessness I had in mind was the apparent void we come from  at birth and the void we enter after we are finished.

In between we try to understand  what our place is in that context.

I doubt other species entertain these ideas but ,who knows maybe they might.

To me, life around us does not always follow a logical path, hence the need to make sense of it.

As for the before and after void, I like your use of the word "apparent", as we really do not know. 

However, if mind is within brain, then there isnothing waiting for us afterward. If mind acts upon brain, then, maybe.

[geordief]

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

To me, life around us does not always follow a logical path, hence the need to make sense of it.

As for the before and after void, I like your use of the word "apparent", as we really do not know. 

However, if mind is within brain, then there isnothing waiting for us afterward. If mind acts upon brain, then, maybe.

I doubt there is a useful dichotomy between the mind and the brain.

To my view the brain is a part of the body  and  what the mind is    is very hard to understand.

[Luc Turpin]

26 minutes ago, geordief said:

I doubt there is a useful dichotomy between the mind and the brain.

To my view the brain is a part of the body  and  what the mind is    is very hard to understand.

Maybe data and observation will determine if a useful dichotomy is there or not!

Brain is part of the body, definitely; where is mind is the main issues that we need to address; It has the potential to change our understanding of our place in the universe; are we mere accidents of nature or active partners in the cosmic dance.

Finding life elswhere in the universe, without it either being brought to or coming from earth, would begin to help us also resolve the enigma.

Hard to understand should not stop us from trying.

[geordief]

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Finding life elswhere in the universe, without it either being brought to or coming from earth, would begin to help us also resolve the enigma.

Sadly (well happily enough) ,I don't think that will ever happen (unless we ever chanced upon a defunct civilization that left records)

Perhaps we could find intelligent life here on earth among the other species if we learn to communicate with them and they understood symbols....or even if they just helped us to understand our own intelligence. (the intelligence we use when our basic needs have been met) 

[Luc Turpin]

Just now, geordief said:

Sadly (well happily enough) ,I don't think that will ever happen (unless we ever chanced upon a defunct civilization that left records)

Perhaps we could find intelligent life here on earth among the other species if we learn to communicate with them and they understood symbols....or even if they just helped us to understand our own intelligence. (the intelligence we use when our basic needs have been met) 

1- Odds are not very good indeed! even for finding remnants of low life forms.

2- If we find intelligence all over in nature, this would also be a key sign of wherein lies mind. Just helping us understand us would be, well, helpful too.

 

[cladking]

15 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Please expand!

Within the context of nature-meaning of existence please.

"We are an expression of whatever beliefs we choose to accept. "

 

I mean it quite literally.  Life is consciousness and consciousness has the exact same logic that underlies reality that we perceive as the "laws of nature".  In part consciousness is pattern recognition and in humans this manifests as explanations of our perceptions based on beliefs and models.  These models often derive from paradigms which are, in effect, more beliefs; beliefs about the proper interpretation of experiment.  

Each human chooses what to believe and this begins with trying to imitate and please our caregivers/ parents.  As we learn we each choose what beliefs to incorporate.  We are each a construct of what we choose to believe. 

Obviously nothing is static and these beliefs evolve over a lifetime and the change will ideally be driven by logic as we perceive it  and the logic of reality as expressed by experiment.  At every point of our lives our actions and perceptions are driven by our beliefs.  Typically our beliefs are reinforced by our perceptions and by the outcomes of actions driven by those same perceptions.  

There is no breaking out of this pattern but by recognizing it we can influence it.  

Edited March 19 by cladking

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, cladking said:

"We are an expression of whatever beliefs we choose to accept. "

I mean it quite literally.  Life is consciousness and consciousness has the exact same logic that underlies reality that we perceive as the "laws of nature". 

So if I was a satanist, would I have horns? 🙂

11 minutes ago, cladking said:

"We are an expression of whatever beliefs we choose to accept. "

 

I mean it quite literally.  Life is consciousness and consciousness has the exact same logic that underlies reality that we perceive as the "laws of nature".  In part consciousness is pattern recognition and in humans this manifests as explanations of our perceptions based on beliefs and models.  These models often derive from paradigms which are, in effect, more beliefs; beliefs about the proper interpretation of experiment.  

Each human chooses what to believe and this begins with trying to imitate and please our caregivers/ parents.  As we learn we each choose what beliefs to incorporate.  We are each a construct of what we choose to believe. 

Obviously nothing is static and these beliefs evolve over a lifetime and the change will ideally be driven by logic as we perceive it  and the logic of reality as expressed by experiment.  At every point of our lives our actions and perceptions are driven by our beliefs.  Typically our beliefs are reinforced by our perceptions and by the outcomes of actions driven by those same perceptions.  

There is no breaking out of this pattern but by recognizing it we can influence it.  

"Blue pill or red pill?"

Besides that's an oxymoron?

Education helps, if it's teaching critical thinking, bc then we can see the adverts and attempts to train our thinking.

[cladking]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So if I was a satanist, would I have horns? 🙂

Reality has little effect on beliefs and beliefs have no effect on reality except through the actions they induce.

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Education helps, if it's teaching critical thinking, bc then we can see the adverts and attempts to train our thinking.

Yes, of course. 

But no education can't make a person correct about anything.  Critical thinking might.   Experiment is a sort of set of guideposts to keep us on a road but it can never be certain it is the right road.  

Edited March 19 by cladking

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, cladking said:

Reality has little effect on beliefs and beliefs have no effect on reality except through the actions they induce.

So, is that a yes to horns?

10 minutes ago, cladking said:

But no education can't make a person correct about anything.

So, is 'that' a yes to horns?

10 minutes ago, cladking said:

 Experiment is a sort of set of guideposts to keep us on a road but it can never be certain it is the right road.  

And yet again we circle back to the only truth we can have about this question, mine...😉

Edited March 19 by dimreepr

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Life is consciousness and consciousness has the exact same logic that underlies reality that we perceive as the "laws of nature". 

So, a universal logic underlies consciousness and reality?

Are the "laws of nature" all encompassing of reality?

Are beliefs involved in determining the meaning or not of existence?

25 minutes ago, cladking said:

Reality has little effect on beliefs and beliefs have no effect on reality except through the actions they induce.

 

What I experience of reality affects my beliefs of it!

My beliefs can change the perception of reality that I have!

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, is that a yes to horns?

You play the part without the horns 😉

[cladking]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

So, a universal logic underlies consciousness and reality?

Yes.

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Are the "laws of nature" all encompassing of reality?

There are no "laws of nature".  There only seem to be because reductionistic science can only reveal one data point, one experiment, at a time.  

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Are beliefs involved in determining the meaning or not of existence?

Only in humans do abstractions like "belief" even apply.  All other life deals with everything through experience/ knowledge much of which derives from pattern recognition and previous experience.  The rest comes from genetics which is another manifestation of logic/ reality.  

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

What I experience of reality affects my beliefs of it!

Yes.  But it's far more true and far more relevant that your beliefs define how you experience reality.  You are a product of your beliefs but reality is not.   

After we've adopted a set of beliefs it changes largely as the result of experiment, experience, or critical thought.

Most of our beliefs are with us for a lifetime.

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

My beliefs can change the perception of reality that I have!

Your perceptions are wholly dependent on your beliefs.   We filter everything through our beliefs.  

We don't normally notice such things because our beliefs and reality tend to be very similar at least to the degree our beliefs can be tested.  We are still a product of our time and place. Everything that can't be tested we tend to assume is like our beliefs.  

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

You play the part without the horns 😉

Indeed.  ...at least until there is a dress rehearsal.  

[Luc Turpin]

51 minutes ago, cladking said:

Yes.

There are no "laws of nature".  There only seem to be because reductionistic science can only reveal one data point, one experiment, at a time.  

Only in humans do abstractions like "belief" even apply.  All other life deals with everything through experience/ knowledge much of which derives from pattern recognition and previous experience.  The rest comes from genetics which is another manifestation of logic/ reality.  

Yes.  But it's far more true and far more relevant that your beliefs define how you experience reality.  You are a product of your beliefs but reality is not.   

After we've adopted a set of beliefs it changes largely as the result of experiment, experience, or critical thought.

Most of our beliefs are with us for a lifetime.

Your perceptions are wholly dependent on your beliefs.   We filter everything through our beliefs.  

We don't normally notice such things because our beliefs and reality tend to be very similar at least to the degree our beliefs can be tested.  We are still a product of our time and place. Everything that can't be tested we tend to assume is like our beliefs.  

Indeed.  ...at least until there is a dress rehearsal.  

1- What evidence is there for a universal logic? Believing it is not enough to make it occur.

2- There is substantial evidence that there are "laws of nature".

3- Not sure that I got an answer!

4- To me, both appear of almost equal proportion.

5- Yes beliefs can change

6- Yes, hard to change a person

7- I do not think that beliefs is the only filter nor a requirement of perception. Some have "mystical' experiences without belief in them.

8- Yes, easy to not notice

 

[cladking]

6 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- What evidence is there for a universal logic? Believing it is not enough to make it occur.

It is the simplest paradigm to explain every experiment.

6 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- There is substantial evidence that there are "laws of nature".

No.  Not really.  We see quantified logic we call "mathematics" agree with experimental results, but experiment is just snapshots of the logic we all seek and that is reality.   We can't directly observe reality because we see our models and beliefs instead.

6 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

7- I do not think that beliefs is the only filter nor a requirement of perception. Some have "mystical' experiences without belief in them.

Non-mystics rarely have mystical experiences.  

We are each different and each a product of beliefs so almost anything becomes possible.  Even entire cultures going insane is possible.   

There is often a sort of truth or logic even in the most baseless beliefs and experienced phenomena.  Truth and logic exist just as much as falsity and illogic exist everywhere.  

 

 

[Luc Turpin]

I reiterate with more precision: what I experience of reality affects my beliefs of it and my beliefs affect the perception that I have of reality, but my own beliefs or collective ones cannot change reality in onto itself. A lot of science would have to be overturned for it to be such and this extraordinary claim would also require extraordinary evidence, before being contemplated as a contending hypothesis.

9 hours ago, cladking said:

It is the simplest paradigm to explain every experiment.

No.  Not really.  We see quantified logic we call "mathematics" agree with experimental results, but experiment is just snapshots of the logic we all seek and that is reality.   We can't directly observe reality because we see our models and beliefs instead.

Non-mystics rarely have mystical experiences.  

We are each different and each a product of beliefs so almost anything becomes possible.  Even entire cultures going insane is possible.   

There is often a sort of truth or logic even in the most baseless beliefs and experienced phenomena.  Truth and logic exist just as much as falsity and illogic exist everywhere.  

1- You are providing a statement, not evidence nor observations

2- I knew that maths would be brought into a discussion on logic. I have major limitations in understanding it's role in describing the universe, so I will pass on this one.

3- Yes they do and are absolutly confounded by the experience, real or not.

4- I think that you need to rephrase this statement as it appears to say that our beliefs mold reality. If your belief is such, then see opening statement above.

5- So, truth, logic, falsity and illogic exist, which seem to run the whole gamut of possibilities. Randomness also uses all of those when expressing itself.

I am not sure that this idea is worth pursuing, unless major discrepancies start cropping up in our current understanding of the universe

Finaly, we are bit off topic.

[cladking]

46 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

but my own beliefs or collective ones cannot change reality in onto itself.

I'm not really suggesting that your beliefs can change reality.  BUT you will perceive reality consistently with your beliefs and then your every action is consistent with your beliefs and perceptions.  Your actions can most assuredly change reality.  

49 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

A lot of science would have to be overturned for it to be such and this extraordinary claim would also require extraordinary evidence, before being contemplated as a contending hypothesis.

No "science" will ever be "overturned".  However experiment is periodically reinterpreted from a new perspective often called a "paradigm".   This occurs in fits and starts based on the specific individuals who are at the forefront of research.  As this group evolves theory changes.   

52 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

1- You are providing a statement, not evidence nor observations

Actually I believe I'm the only one with evidence.  But this is a philosophy forum so evidence is off topic and nobody, I can assure you, is interested in such evidence.  Suffice to say that every experiment ever performed agrees with this interpretation, or at the very least, no experiment counters it.  

54 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

2- I knew that maths would be brought into a discussion on logic. I have major limitations in understanding it's role in describing the universe, so I will pass on this one.

It's simple enough.  Math simply always corresponds directly to reality (2 apples is 1 more than 1 apple).   This correspondence results from them both being based in logic.  

57 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am not sure that this idea is worth pursuing, unless major discrepancies start cropping up in our current understanding of the universe

...Like the double slit experiment?  

If you think it's off topic I will respond no further.  Buit this is I believe the nature of our existence; the nature of life, the nature of reality and the nature of science and philosophy.  

[Luc Turpin]

10 minutes ago, cladking said:

I'm not really suggesting that your beliefs can change reality.  BUT you will perceive reality consistently with your beliefs and then your every action is consistent with your beliefs and perceptions.  Your actions can most assuredly change reality.  

No "science" will ever be "overturned".  However experiment is periodically reinterpreted from a new perspective often called a "paradigm".   This occurs in fits and starts based on the specific individuals who are at the forefront of research.  As this group evolves theory changes.   

Actually I believe I'm the only one with evidence.  But this is a philosophy forum so evidence is off topic and nobody, I can assure you, is interested in such evidence.  Suffice to say that every experiment ever performed agrees with this interpretation, or at the very least, no experiment counters it.  

It's simple enough.  Math simply always corresponds directly to reality (2 apples is 1 more than 1 apple).   This correspondence results from them both being based in logic.  

...Like the double slit experiment?  

If you think it's off topic I will respond no further.  Buit this is I believe the nature of our existence; the nature of life, the nature of reality and the nature of science and philosophy.  

1- Yes, your actions can most assuredly change reality, within the limits of the laws of nature.

2- Then there will have to be a lot of reinterpretation to be done from this paradigm shifting perspective.  Paradigm shift - Thomas Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in science in which scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of conceptual continuity where there is cumulative progress, which Kuhn referred to as periods of "normal science", were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving"^[1] of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.^[2]·"

^{3- Please expand if you wish on you only having the evidence and that every experiment agrees with this interpretation, but agree that this is a philosophy forum so evidence is not an absolute requirment.} 

^{4- I guess simply explained, simply understood; I think though that there is more to the story than this.}

^{5- Like what about the double slit experiment?}

^{6- Please expand on the relationship of logic-beliefs and the nature or meaning of existence?}

Note: I admit of being out of my comfort zone with your topic, but our back and fourth is useful at least to me as I am seekiing to understand at the same time as I am responding.

[MSC]

Wow! Lots to catch up on! Thanks for all the contributions to the discussion (Even you Dim, maybe especially you!). Will have some responses for y'all tonight. 

Dw about off-topics too much for now, so long as whatever you're discussing is something that aids in your understanding of reality and your existence and we can put a pin in anything interesting that comes up that should split off into it's own thread. 

[cladking]

12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

4- I guess simply explained, simply understood; I think though that there is more to the story than this.

Math is math and all math is logical by nature.  Reality is infinitely complex and we are always inventing increasingly complex math in attempts to learn about nature and to explain existing phenomena. 

15 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

6- Please expand on the relationship of logic-beliefs and the nature or meaning of existence?

I will try to keep  evidence out of this but remember I believe that it is entirely consistent with all experiment.  This is interpretation.

"Consciousness" and thought are distinct.  Only humans today think.  It is the product of comparing all sensory input to beliefs and models.   

For all practical purposes "life" and "consciousness" are the same thing.  All life and all consciousness are individual.  Consciousness arises from the individual's "wiring" which is logical so consciousness is logical.  Other than humans individuals act on experience/ knowledge and logic.  Some things are axiomatic to consciousness and these include cause precedes effect, no two identical things exist, reality exists as it appears, and that reality is complete unto itself.  

Survival is wired into every individual and is the chief purpose of consciousness.  Pattern recognition exists to explain and predict reality supporting survival. 

Consciousness is digital (binary) except in humans.     

 

[MSC]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Actually I believe I'm the only one with evidence.  But this is a philosophy forum so evidence is off topic and nobody, I can assure you, is interested in such evidence.  Suffice to say that every experiment ever performed agrees with this interpretation, or at the very least, no experiment counters it.  

While I understand why you said this, I just want to nip it in the bud. This is the Philosophy section of a Science Forum.

In philosophy though, there are some standards for at least backing up your line of thinking by supplying some references to someone else who's line of thinking is in line with or strengthens your own. The idea here is that if you believe you are arguing on the side of what is true, if you're failing to convince someone of it, it's because you're not explaining it in a way that your conversational counterpart can understand or accept, assuming they are arguing in good faith, which is polite to assume until proven otherwise. Sometimes, someone else said what you wanted to say, better. 

Quote

One cannot conceive anything so strange and so implausible that it has not already been said by one philosopher or another.

 - Rene Descartes 

The above is a small example. Depending on the topic, more than 1 line is expected. You'd be shocked at how many people could get a decent grade on a philosophy paper, where the majority of the text is references to other texts. 

Edited March 20 by MSC
Corrections

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, cladking said:

It is the simplest paradigm to explain every experiment.

And that's why it's wrong, there is no simple explanation of any experiment; look into a mirror and explain why it's back to front instead of upside-down?

[Luc Turpin]

 

36 minutes ago, cladking said:

Math is math and all math is logical by nature.  Reality is infinitely complex and we are always inventing increasingly complex math in attempts to learn about nature and to explain existing phenomena. 

I will try to keep  evidence out of this but remember I believe that it is entirely consistent with all experiment.  This is interpretation.

"Consciousness" and thought are distinct.  Only humans today think.  It is the product of comparing all sensory input to beliefs and models.   

For all practical purposes "life" and "consciousness" are the same thing.  All life and all consciousness are individual.  Consciousness arises from the individual's "wiring" which is logical so consciousness is logical.  Other than humans individuals act on experience/ knowledge and logic.  Some things are axiomatic to consciousness and these include cause precedes effect, no two identical things exist, reality exists as it appears, and that reality is complete unto itself.  

Survival is wired into every individual and is the chief purpose of consciousness.  Pattern recognition exists to explain and predict reality supporting survival. 

Consciousness is digital (binary) except in humans.     

 

I think that I have been mediocre at best in my understanding and responding to your topic

The fault is all mine and on my limited knowledge of the subject matter.

But consciousness, I have many opinions about it. With some backed by evidence.

• Thought and consciousness are strongly corelated; I think therefore I am
• Mounting evidence, not yet conclusive, hints at not only us humans that can think
• Life and consciousness are corelated, but not the same thing; one is a biological process and the other is still in the process of being defined; it is either an emergent property of matter or an essential element of life, but not life itself
• I don't see how "wiring" makes it logical, expand
• Cause precedes effect, no two identical things exist, reality exists as it appears, and reality is complete unto itself - all of this seems related to reality, not consciousness.
• Survival has to be assured for consciousness to exist, then, maybe, more attributes come into play afterward.
• All of consciousness, in humans and others if they are conscious (still being debated), is non digital. The brain does not work like a computer (ample evidence on this one).

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And that's why it's wrong, there is no simple explanation of any experiment; look into a mirror and explain why it's back to front instead of upside-down?

Good point!

To me, science and philosophy are a bit like dart throwing, but one has a target and the other appears to not have one 😊

[MSC]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Math is math and all math is logical by nature.  Reality is infinitely complex and we are always inventing increasingly complex math in attempts to learn about nature and to explain existing phenomena. 

I will try to keep  evidence out of this but remember I believe that it is entirely consistent with all experiment.  This is interpretation.

"Consciousness" and thought are distinct.  Only humans today think.  It is the product of comparing all sensory input to beliefs and models.   

For all practical purposes "life" and "consciousness" are the same thing.  All life and all consciousness are individual.  Consciousness arises from the individual's "wiring" which is logical so consciousness is logical.  Other than humans individuals act on experience/ knowledge and logic.  Some things are axiomatic to consciousness and these include cause precedes effect, no two identical things exist, reality exists as it appears, and that reality is complete unto itself.  

Survival is wired into every individual and is the chief purpose of consciousness.  Pattern recognition exists to explain and predict reality supporting survival. 

Consciousness is digital (binary) except in humans.     

 

There are definitely claims here that require evidence. You've not convinced me that a hungry bear would not or could not think that we'd both make a tasty meal and believe it to be true enough to try to take a bite. If you want to link consciousness to thought, instead of the awareness of thought, that's fine. To believe that animals are not similarly endowed, because you won the evolutionary jackpot of linguistic expression through the right vocal chords, dexteritous fingers and thumbs etc; that to me just reeks of an unjustifiable anthroprocentrism on shaky grounds. Especially since the bear is privy to a world of scent perception that you and I could never begin to understand. We literally cannot have the same thoughts about scent, that a bear can. 

If you want to carry on down the wiring route, bears have brain wiring and some mammals have more complex brain wiring than we do. Whales and Dolphins are good examples. 

Maybe it's better to think of consciousness in terms of degree, rather than type. 

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

There are definitely claims here that require evidence. You've not convinced me that a hungry bear would not or could not think that we'd both make a tasty meal and believe it to be true enough to try to take a bite. If you want to link consciousness to thought, instead of the awareness of thought, that's fine. To believe that animals are not similarly endowed, because you won the evolutionary jackpot of linguistic expression through the right vocal chords, dexteritous fingers and thumbs etc; that to me just reeks of an unjustifiable anthroprocentrism on shaky grounds. Especially since the bear is privy to a world of scent perception that you and I could never begin to understand. We literally cannot have the same thoughts about scent, that a bear can. 

If you want to carry on down the wiring route, bears have brain wiring and some mammals have more complex brain wiring than we do. Whales and Dolphins are good examples. 

Maybe it's better to think of consciousness in terms of degree, rather than type. 

+1