What is the nature of our existence?

[Luc Turpin]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Ephermeral.
 

What is the nature of existence?

Ephemeral…. and therefore meaningless is the logical conclusion!

So, why do we exist or even bother existing?

Now, these questions are worth pondering!

Circumventing meaning to discuss the nature of existence is avoidance.

The elephant is still in the room.

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

why do we exist or even bother existing?

Those that didn’t were selected against 

[Luc Turpin]

49 minutes ago, iNow said:

Those that didn’t were selected against 

Unsatisfactory

Why do we exist - this could all have been unanimated without existence. Just molecules bumping by accident into each other. Sorry for the bother, but it is not! There’s that silly thing called existence which is strongly corelated with being conscious of existence. So, why is it there? Why can we ask the question “why”? Claiming “selection” is avoiding a discussion on the fundamental nature of existence. And where did it come from? On this, don't get me going by telling me that it is an emergent property of matter, because this is a big cop-out for, we don’t know! These questions are all valid for the asking, with or without God being summoned.

or even bother existing - if it is all for nothing, why do you wake up in the morning and do what you do?

The elephant is still standing.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Unsatisfactory

Why do we exist

It doesn’t matter. We do. 

[naitche]

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

TBH I thought it was you that brought up the number's related objective, but OK let's bin that;

Values are not always numerical .

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

what's left is objective purpose (unless you have your own definition), which, when we drill down to the fundamentals, is to continue living;

Forget living too, for the purpose of existence. To 'Be', is more fitting. Life is only one form of existence  recognized.

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

but that's not a universal given for all people or creature's, some of them get the urge to shag themselves to death, they wake up one day and their purpose has changed they now fundamentally, want to die and some people chose now to end their life.

Exactly. To be alive is not the totality of being. Its only one value given to the totality of existence,  so not definitive of being. Its one value, and our existence evidences that, but is not = to the definitive total.

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Like I said, "whatever way I parse this, the answer is no." 

No to what?! existence?

If you consider yours meaningless, that doesn't dictate that we should assume your perspective is correct.

That there is no Objective we might potentially be able to contribute towards, by our existence. The existential structures of existence  that our own might potentially contribute towards.

What I have been trying to say is that the physical properties that allow mathematics to work for us, are those that allow existence.

Form follows function.  Form does not direct it. Function does that.

An existential  totality is not supported by its being, but by the value action or Objective to its being. 

The value(s) must be given 1st, and are always = to the objective.

The objective is Not equal to any value other than its actual definition.  More than one totality is not supportable in a single definition.

Dogs are not Pedigrees. To assume that is true is not reality, but based on faith in a pedigree Objective that does not recognize the totality, or environment, of dogs as equal to their Objective being.

That action or Objective applied to Dogs serves to subtract dogs to a Pedigree state that can not support the totality of 'Dogs' environment. An action that gains momentum as the environment is subtracted to one that supports a Pedigree over a dog. Responsibility to dogs and the environment that supports them  is lost, as ability of of response is restricted to a pedigree presentation of state. 

Dogs loose value to their environment, as its  demands are not met. Values of healthy longevity and abilities of response to the demands of diverse environments in prioritization of a pedigree, are lost to the total value of Dogs.

Their Breeders deem the environment faulty for the failures of demonstrable value to it, and so gain support to restrict the environments available to dogs. Further decreasing abilities of response and diversity to the Objective.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

It doesn’t matter. We do. 

And it is relevant that some are selected against,  to the Objective totality expressed. 

Edited March 15 by naitche

[Luc Turpin]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

It doesn’t matter. We do. 

It matters. We do.  So, let's stop ignoring, circumventing, disparaging or comparing it to "pseudo science, quasi scientific speculations, free riding ideas with no basis on (observable) reality, or metaphysical fantasies". Some of it is, but not all of it. We are smart enough to know the difference without having to throw the baby with the bath water. And let's not collectively freak out when Deepak or God is mentioned, or if it might bring into question a pillar of science. Is it hard to study? Yes. Is it difficult to measure? Yes. Is it subjective? Yes, but not all of it. Is it a random occurrence? Yes, but is it still? Does it need God to work? Not necessarily. Do we need a lot of evidence before accepting some of it? Yes.

The elephant is growing.

7 hours ago, naitche said:

And it is relevant that some are selected against,  to the Objective totality expressed. 

Having difficulty following you, but got this one.

Correction - So, let's stop ignoring, circumventing, disparaging or comparing it to "pseudo science, quasi scientific speculations, free riding ideas with no basis on (observable) reality, or metaphysical fantasies" everytime we study it.

[Genady]

The answer is here:

 

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, naitche said:

No to what?! existence?

If you consider yours meaningless, that doesn't dictate that we should assume your perspective is correct.

No to the idea that there's objective truth (whatever definition) to be told or taught, for life to make sense we have to self contextualise, then our story can flow.

There is no correct perspective, not even your's.

 

Edited March 15 by dimreepr

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

The answer is here:

 

Cute!

Reading more Kafka, Camus, Dawkins and Freud proscribed; psilocybin prescribed!😇

Some newer data-observation points do not tightly align with it being solely about self-replicating DNA. So, what do we do about it? Ignore it?

Let data help us understand life, not judgement calls.

Without subjective introspection of any kind, science becomes merely a bean counting, stamp collection and material comfort endeavour. And not reflect the reality of this world, especially the subjective one.

[naitche]

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No to the idea that there's objective truth (whatever definition) to be told or taught, for life to make sense we have to self contextualise, then our story can flow.

There is no correct perspective, not even your's.

 

I agree. But  the question brought in the  O.P. was better crafted to avoid that kind of circularity.

The meaning of life is subjective, but thats not the question posed.

The question posed, and any answer arrived at, is more consequential than that.

Edited March 15 by naitche

[TheVat]

Merleau-Ponty construed existence as understood through the body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Merleau-Ponty

Merleau-Ponty understands perception to be an ongoing dialogue between one's lived body and the world which it perceives, in which perceivers passively and actively strive to express the perceived world in concert with others. He was the only major phenomenologist of the first half of the twentieth century to engage extensively with the sciences. It is through this engagement that his writings became influential in the project of naturalizing phenomenology, in which phenomenologists use the results of psychology and cognitive science.

Merleau-Ponty emphasized the body as the primary site of knowing the world, a corrective to the long philosophical tradition of placing consciousness as the source of knowledge, and maintained that the perceiving body and its perceived world could not be disentangled from each other. The articulation of the primacy of embodiment (corporéité) led him away from phenomenology towards what he was to call "indirect ontology" or the ontology of "the flesh of the world" 

[naitche]

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Merleau-Ponty construed existence as understood through the body.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Merleau-Ponty

Merleau-Ponty understands perception to be an ongoing dialogue between one's lived body and the world which it perceives, in which perceivers passively and actively strive to express the perceived world in concert with others. He was the only major phenomenologist of the first half of the twentieth century to engage extensively with the sciences. It is through this engagement that his writings became influential in the project of naturalizing phenomenology, in which phenomenologists use the results of psychology and cognitive science.

Merleau-Ponty emphasized the body as the primary site of knowing the world, a corrective to the long philosophical tradition of placing consciousness as the source of knowledge, and maintained that the perceiving body and its perceived world could not be disentangled from each other. The articulation of the primacy of embodiment (corporéité) led him away from phenomenology towards what he was to call "indirect ontology" or the ontology of "the flesh of the world" 

Yes, Where the body one is provided is  part of the environment to which we respond to.

[iNow]

14 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

The elephant is growing.

Even the largest of elephants can be eaten one bite at a time 

[Luc Turpin]

13 hours ago, TheVat said:

Merleau-Ponty emphasized the body as the primary site of knowing the world, a corrective to the long philosophical tradition of placing consciousness as the source of knowledge, and maintained that the perceiving body and its perceived world could not be disentangled from each other. 

+1

Body instead of consciousness as source of knowledge - interesting.  Based on the interpretation of some newer evidence, I would rather say "body as a source of consciousness."

Perceived body and perceived world could not be disentangled from each other - very interesting.  Context, interelationship... all of this matters to fully understand.

10 hours ago, iNow said:

Even the largest of elephants can be eaten one bite at a time 

Guess you will have to eat the room as well as the elephant; and the building containing the room; and the world containing the building.

[geordief]

31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

+1

Body instead of consciousness as source of knowledge - interesting.  Based on the interpretation of some newer evidence, I would rather say "body as a source of consciousness."

Perceived body and perceived world could not be disentangled from each other - very interesting.  Context, interelationship... all of this matters to fully understand.

Guess you will have to eat the room as well as the elephant; and the building containing the room; and the world containing the building.

So ,if we lose a hair off our head we loose (just change?) a bit of our consciousness(as well as when  there is a change in the environment such as the sun going behind a cloud)?

 

Can we increase or decrease our amount of consciousness or is it just redirected/reoriented?

Do emotions affect our consciousness?

 

[Genady]

Consciousness does not have amount or direction. It is a symbolic system of recording experiences.

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Guess you will have to eat the room as well as the elephant; and the building containing the room; and the world containing the building.

Ok, but it still happens one bite at a time 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Body instead of consciousness as source of knowledge - interesting. 

That's not what he's saying, we're like mobile anthill all of the part's are inseparable and they all inform the context of our story, if we lose an arm the story changes.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Guess you will have to eat the room as well as the elephant; and the building containing the room; and the world containing the building.

Everything is on somethings menu.

16 hours ago, naitche said:

I agree. But  the question brought in the  O.P. was better crafted to avoid that kind of circularity.

The meaning of life is subjective, but thats not the question posed.

The question posed, and any answer arrived at, is more consequential than that.

You do like to change the goalposts 🙄, but OK I'll bite; what is the actual question?

In 'A Brave new world' the world is engineered to provide everything we need, in a peaceful world; what's wrong with that?

 

[iNow]

Just now, Genady said:

Consciousness does not have amount or direction

Depends upon how one defines it. States of consciousness certainly change, when inebriated or otherwise intoxicated, sick, fatigued, dehydrated, low blood sugar, under duress, suffering a head injury, etc.

[Genady]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Depends upon how one defines it. States of consciousness certainly change, when inebriated or otherwise intoxicated, sick, fatigued, dehydrated, low blood sugar, under duress, suffering a head injury, etc.

Yes, its functioning changes. And sometimes stops.

[geordief]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, its functioning changes. And sometimes stops.

You are thinking of a coma?

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

Consciousness does not have amount or direction. It is a symbolic system of recording experiences.

So if you have an experience where "nothing could be better" (as in the oft quoted line"it was bliss that day to be alive" ) and this is followed by the depths of despair   (perhaps as a result of a medical condition) your consciousness does not follow any direction? 

 

In the former experience all your days lie ahead of you in anticipation  and in the later there is no tomorrow.

 

Is your consciousness  diminished or altered? 

[Genady]

1 minute ago, geordief said:

You are thinking of a coma?

So if you have an experience where "nothing could be better" (as in the oft quoted line"it was bliss that day to be alive" ) and this is followed by the depths of despair   (perhaps as a result of a medical condition) your consciousness does not follow any direction? 

 

In the former experience all your days lie ahead of you in anticipation  and in the later there is no tomorrow.

 

Is your consciousness  diminished or altered? 

My consciousness records these experiences.

[geordief]

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

My consciousness records these experiences.

I think more along the lines that your consciousness  is those experiences.

 

There is nothing  "hands off" about what I think of as consciousness.It is entirely immersive , athough there is an illusion of an "internal observer". which is just a facet of our consciousness.

[Genady]

20 minutes ago, geordief said:

I think more along the lines that your consciousness  is those experiences.

 

There is nothing  "hands off" about what I think of as consciousness.It is entirely immersive , athough there is an illusion of an "internal observer". which is just a facet of our consciousness.

This is the difference in our approach: I think that my consciousness is a symbolic reflection of my experiences. The experiences, including thoughts and concepts, are not conscious.

[geordief]

58 minutes ago, Genady said:

This is the difference in our approach: I think that my consciousness is a symbolic reflection of my experiences. The experiences, including thoughts and concepts, are not conscious.

Do I sound like an extreme monist?

And you would be a mainstream monist ,perhaps?

I am only slightly familiar with these concepts

https://www3.nd.edu/~maritain/jmc/etext/psych023.htm#:~:text=Dualism teaches that Mind and,one and the same Reality.

 

but ,from the link there seem to be quite a few variations...

 

I think I would be attracted to what you say is not the case

1 hour ago, Genady said:

The experiences, including thoughts and concepts, are not conscious.

I think consciousnesss could be extensive in the same way as a particle extends into its field according to QFT.

 

(of course I am waffling)