Who are we?

[Eltu]

I completely agree with you, Tsyal, as you have probably seen in my replies these last pages.

Aquaplant: What are you talking about? This thread is hardly related to solving all the world's problems.

[Fkeu'itan]

People like Eltu and myself do have proof, but you can't explain it, because it's a feeling. A twinge in (or sometimes a lot more than just a twinge, but a full-on assault on) the senses.

You have to have it, to experience it yourself to be able to know how real it feels, sometimes - and how constant it feels, almost all of the time, in varying degrees. I know all the science heads will jump all over this, denouncing it because there's no physical evidence, that maths can't equate it, so it doesn't exist and that it's all just electro-chemicals in the brain... The philosophisers will be claiming that 'reality' disproves it, that it's all interpretational nonsense and it's just perspective. But that is the only way I can really describe it using words.

Oh, and as for what Tsyal said... Truer words have never been spoken, in my opinion.

I don't mind debate. I don't mind discussion. But slamming someone and denouncing all that they feel as wrong simply because they feel it internally instead of seeing it externally is not an ideal that this forum was first built on, a long time ago.

[Aquaplant]

It's just a reflection of change in the mindset when we realize our current lifestyle is threatened, and humans don't respond well to change. We don't care about problems until they are likely to concern us, and most likely they soon will, but I hope I won't live to see that.

That is to say when everything is fine and dandy people can pursue leisure activities like philosophy and babbling nonsense on the internet, but when it turns out it's a possibility that we might loose this privilege, people start to think more sensibly and look for answers to solve these problems.

That's what I think anyways.

[Eltu]

Originally Posted by Fkeu'itan

People like Eltu and myself do have proof, but you can't explain it, because it's a feeling. A twinge in (or sometimes a lot more than just a twinge, but a full-on assault on) the senses.

You have to have it, to experience it yourself to be able to know how real it feels, sometimes - and how constant it feels, almost all of the time, in varying degrees. I know all the science heads will jump all over this, denouncing it because there's no physical evidence, that maths can't equate it, so it doesn't exist and that it's all just electro-chemicals in the brain... The philosophisers will be claiming that 'reality' disproves it, that it's all interpretational nonsense and it's just perspective. But that is the only way I can really describe it using words.

Oh, and as for what Tsyal said... Truer words have never been spoken, in my opinion.

I don't mind debate. I don't mind discussion. But slamming someone and denouncing all that they feel as wrong simply because they feel it internally instead of seeing it externally is not an ideal that this forum was first built on, a long time ago.

Exactly.

[Fkeu'itan]

Try to reason all you want, with conventional wisodom, with theories, tests, equations and science, but as this is a non-conventional feeling, then you will not succeed.

And trust me, I am just as frustrated trying to prove it using just language and all the restrictions that presents, as you are trying to get concrete evidence from us that we know thre is something else that exists beyond what we know and what we think we know.

[Eltu]

Indeed. Just try to explain the color "red" to a man who's been blind from birth, and you'll see what we mean.

[auroraglacialis]

Indeed Eltu - I think that emotional aspect is something that is almost impossible to convey. It has to be experienced - be that by sitting outside the shell that we created for our physical lives out of concrete and glass and steel and for our inner lives by getting stuck in virtual predefined worlds or in concepts on how to look at reality. I have my share of trouble leaving that, too

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Our world has vast amount of problems that need solving. Philosophy can't provide solutions for these problems, because they are physical in nature, and that's why we must rely on science to take on this difficult task, or perish when our problems become unmanageable.

I guess this is only insofar ontopic as that there was a bit of a debate if philosophy is worth dealing in at all. I say it is, because the problems our world and we as a species face are not merely physical. We are in a spiritual crisis as well. We are in a social crisis as well. And for these, philosophy can actually do something that science cannot. I think to look for things beyond the fragmented pieces, beyond the cells and the DNA and the organs tha make us is vital. Some of the major problems in fact come from the lack of such thinking. In thinking that we are all seperated and that there is no meaning, no "Why" - that we are "just a bunch of cells that mechanistically go their way" - we deprive ourselves of our humanness. The thing that people really saw as the greatest achievements over the milennia from antiquity to now is philosophy. We still read Aristotle and Plato and say that all that creation of technology in the ancient times is very positive because it enabled people to be philosophers and artists. To say at any point that this is the endpoint - that the philosophy of science of our times is the only way to explain the world seems to me rather narrow.

Originally Posted by Clarke

AFAIK, chimps can be, in the right circumstances, just as violent as humans. So can dolphins. So can almost all life on Earth.

I was just pointing out, that there is a general tendency to excuse human behaviour with chimpanzee behaviour and to characterize chimpanzees as a violent people in general.

Humans took the idea of "memes" and cranked it up to eleven, but that shouldn't mean that all memes are acceptable. IMHO, culture is culture; it is not a substitute for reason, or science, or investigation. It's AFAIK entirely feasible for a human-like species to exist who don't have mythologies, or fantasies, but who only investigated the world rigorously.

You are operating under the assumption that there is some kind of "truth" and the rest is "just fantasy" - I think this is a way to see things, but it is also a certain culture. To desire to explain Nature by science is a culture. And investigation is not a privilege of modern science. People always observed and investigated. They just maybe did not use the method our culture uses. They asked plants and spirits, they listened and watched the messages of the world around us, the world that we are a part of. Their stories are different maybe but what really justifies to say that the way most of us look at the world is the "only right way". And if someone cannot describe an experience or thought or feeling within the terms and context of this culture, it is put off as a fantasy. I think there needs to be more openness about the things we do not know or cannot know by the tools of our culture.

The Na'vi aren't playing by the rules of evolution, like humans are. They don't have our conception of "progress" because they don't need it. They don't need medicine, or better ways to get food, or basically any other upshot of technology, because "Eywa" provides all of it for them.

I think that this is not really so at all. NA'Vi also die, they may have bad luck in a hunt or fall from an Ikran or eat one of the many poisenous plants or fall prey to a predator if they dont take care. "Eywa does not take sides". It does not value the desires of a NA'Vi over that of any other being. Also there certainly is evolution. If only to explain why there is Eywa at all, but also the animals have undergone a development, an evolutionary change. Indigenous peoples on Earth often also do not share "our conception of progress" because they also do not need it. They have a different concept on who they are and what their task and place is in the world. Certainly, the NA'Vi could strive for fast moving trains to visit people far away much more quickly than with a direhorse or they could want to have an elevator in hometree or a safer replacement for going hunting for Sturmbeest. Or something that keeps them dry or eleiminates the need to go outside when there is rain. Or just better knives for hunting and metal arrowtips or arrows that shoot more precise - or just guns that make sure no one goes hungry after an unseccessful hunt....

I'll let you work out how to develop utopia without technology.

Utopia does not exist. That is in the name. If we ever want to get close to it, I think it is not because we look at what we have not, but because we look at what we have. And I think to ask these questions of who we are and why we are here are important parts of that. Some form of spirituality may be a part of that.That does not mean religion. These are different things.

[Eltu]

I agree with all you said, Aurora, but especially this:

Originally Posted by Aurora

You are operating under the assumption that there is some kind of "truth" and the rest is "just fantasy" - I think this is a way to see things, but it is also a certain culture. To desire to explain Nature by science is a culture. And investigation is not a privilege of modern science. People always observed and investigated. They just maybe did not use the method our culture uses. They asked plants and spirits, they listened and watched the messages of the world around us, the world that we are a part of. Their stories are different maybe but what really justifies to say that the way most of us look at the world is the "only right way". And if someone cannot describe an experience or thought or feeling within the terms and context of this culture, it is put off as a fantasy. I think there needs to be more openness about the things we do not know or cannot know by the tools of our culture.

Couldn't agree more.

[Moco Loco]

When I advocate for science, I am not discounting what might be or could be or what you say we label as "just fantasy". Science is in fact not a culture because it isn't insinuating anything beyond what is testable. All that other stuff very well might be there, but my chips are on the table for what I know is there.

[Eltu]

Your chips. It's all fine, and I respect that - but what I don't respect is people telling me that I'm wrong because I believe differently (such as the tone in HNM's post above, for instance).

I'm fine with people seeing things differently than me - but I wish it'd work the other way around too, which apparently isn't the case for some people.

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Human No More

In other words, you reject a call for proof because you don't have any.

This. Philosophy is based on which arguments are more correct than others. Rejecting logic can't be treated as a coherent argument, almost by definition.

Originally Posted by Fkeu'itan

People like Eltu and myself do have proof, but you can't explain it, because it's a feeling. A twinge in (or sometimes a lot more than just a twinge, but a full-on assault on) the senses.

...which can be artificially induced by the God helmet. At that point, I've got to ask how you know you're not just imagining things.

You have to have it, to experience it yourself to be able to know how real it feels...

Keyword is highlighted. Of course it feels real; dreams feel real, but aren't, and I've seen nobody distinguish the two rigorously. If you can't find a non-arbitrary method to separate the two, then how can you say you're right?

I don't mind debate. I don't mind discussion. But slamming someone and denouncing all that they feel as wrong simply because they feel it internally instead of seeing it externally is not an ideal that this forum was first built on, a long time ago.

There's a difference between having a different viewpoint and being incoherent.

Originally Posted by Eltu

Indeed. Just try to explain the color "red" to a man who's been blind from birth, and you'll see what we mean.

Blind men don't need to see to know how vision works. You don't need to be able to see radio waves to do astronomy.

[Moco Loco]

Originally Posted by Human No More

In other words, you reject a call for proof because you don't have any.

I don't see any tone in this (that might be because I'm reading text ) Sounds to me like he was just stating a fact. You don't have evidence and we do. It doesn't mean we're necessarily discounting your beliefs (or I'm not, anyway).

[Eltu]

Originally Posted by Clarke

This. Philosophy is based on which arguments are more correct than others. Rejecting logic can't be treated as a coherent argument, almost by definition.

You are entirely missing the point. What's "correct" or not is a question of personal opinion - it depends on how you choose to view the world. I choose to view the world non-scientifically, so saying that my opinions are scientifically incorrect is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Clarke

...which can be artificially induced by the God helmet. At that point, I've got to ask how you know you're not just imagining things.

What's "imagining", really? How do you know you're not imagining the computer in front of you? You believe your senses, because that makes sense to you. Same for me, when it comes to less physical/scientifically provable things.

Originally Posted by Clarke

Keyword is highlighted. Of course it feels real; dreams feel real, but aren't, and I've seen nobody distinguish the two rigorously. If you can't find a non-arbitrary method to separate the two, then how can you say you're right?

Going a bit offtopic here, but - if you ask me, dreams are VERY real, in every sense of the word. Not going into topics of AP and the likes here though, since it's not entirely related.

Originally Posted by Clarke

There's a difference between having a different viewpoint and being incoherent.

My viewpoint may seen incoherent to you, but to me it makes perfect sense. Cannot you respect that?

Originally Posted by Clarke

Blind men don't need to see to know how vision works. You don't need to be able to see radio waves to do astronomy.

You're completely missing the point here - and I think you know that.

Originally Posted by Moco Loco

I don't see any tone in this (that might be because I'm reading text ) Sounds to me like he was just stating a fact. You don't have evidence and we do. It doesn't mean we're necessarily discounting your beliefs (or I'm not, anyway).

HNM is implying that my opinion is wrong because I don't have any scientific evidence for it. I'm fine with him disagreeing, but he's specifically saying I'm wrong and that's something that should be fixed (and I've talked to him enough on IRC to know that is his opinion). And that's why I'm reacting negatively towards - disagree with my viewpoint if you want, but I'd be happy if you can at least respect that I view things differently even if you cannot understand it.

[Fkeu'itan]

Originally Posted by Clarke

I've got to ask how you know you're not just imagining things.

Honestly, I don't. I just guess it's a hunch. But seeing as i've felt it a number of times, as strongly as I have at times, then I personally find it a good case to suggest there's something there. Maybe I have a mental condition, maybe I have a brain tumour developing. Maybe i'm just downright nuts. But as long as I feel these things, I will always be wondering why that feeling is so.

Originally Posted by Clarke

Keyword is highlighted. Of course it feels real; dreams feel real, but aren't, and I've seen nobody distinguish the two rigorously. If you can't find a non-arbitrary method to separate the two, then how can you say you're right?

As Eltu said, how do you *know* you aren't imagining anything. Right now, all we have to go on are senses... Sight, smell, touch... All they are is electrical signals interpreted by the brain, so how can you truly know what is the 'right' thing to sense? Whether what you are sensing is actually real, the same as everyone else, or if what you see and another sees are completely different? Maybe everything we sense is wrong...

By the way, I never claimed I was 'right' in any way. I was just stating my ideas as best I can.

Originally Posted by Clarke

There's a difference between having a different viewpoint and being incoherent.

Incoherant to you, maybe... But for others who may have shared this experience, I make complete sense. Honestly, I have no interest in science or mathematics, I never have. So naturally, I do not understand them. Thus, when you start trying to press theories forward that are largely scientific, I find a lot of people who use such examples incohereant, too. It's just a case of understanding. If you could show me all the scientific/mathematical proof out there, and I learned it, experienced the way it works for myself, I might be pulled in your direction more. Equally, if you had the spiritual experiences I have had in my time, first hand, you too might have your mind changed in favour of my viewpoint.

Point is, we both have our reasons for believing what we believe, yours may be founded in 'reality', and mine might be founded in 'sensory', but either way... I don't know that either of our minds will be changed until we have both experienced the whole spectrum.

Edit: What is irritating me a little here, is that i'm trying to be open-minded about science and what it proposes, stopping and thinking about it for a while... while it seems that the people I am discussing with are quite content to just completely dismiss everything the more spiritual on these threads as nonsense with little thought to what we are proposing.

One-way traffic?

Just a thought.

[Eltu]

Edit: What is irritating me a little here, is that i'm trying to be open-minded about science and what it proposes, stopping and thinking about it for a while... while it seems that the people I am discussing with are quite content to just completely dismiss everything the more spiritual on these threads as nonsense with little thought to what we are proposing.

I am getting quite frustrated by that, too. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me - but I am asking you all to at least respect my opinions and not throw them away as "unproven" or "nonsense".