Question my beliefs.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2013, 05:16 PM
RE: Question my beliefs.
(23-12-2013 04:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I can not be a nihilist

I only hold as much belief in the label as you give yours.

(23-12-2013 04:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There are too great known gaps in our knowledge to give nihilism any attention.

Past, present, future.

Compared to when we knew nothing, to what we know now, to whatever we are yet to discover is no guarantee of an answer. In the long distant future our ancestors may intricately know how the universe, and everything contained within it works and operates, they may not be closer to why?

(23-12-2013 04:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There definitely seems to be a meaning of life, only this meaning is developing.

What you call "meaning" What is so original about your definition of the meaning of life that is different to the billions of people who have lived before us and the billions who will live after us? Will your definition of life be valid in 2000 years time?

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
24-12-2013, 01:35 PM
RE: Question my beliefs.
(23-12-2013 05:16 PM)bemore Wrote:  I only hold as much belief in the label as you give yours.
I don't quite understand the word "belief". I think I rejected that concept long ago. I am pretty sure it involves emotional attachment to the object believed in and it can be avoided.
Would you rather say you do not insist on this particular label very much, or that you qualify your persuasion with a less than 100 % percentage of probability?
Both are very fine things to do, I think Thumbsup

(23-12-2013 05:16 PM)bemore Wrote:  Past, present, future.

Compared to when we knew nothing, to what we know now, to whatever we are yet to discover is no guarantee of an answer. In the long distant future our ancestors may intricately know how the universe, and everything contained within it works and operates, they may not be closer to why?
In the long distant future our descendants will be something different and will have different means, needs and expectations of the universe. However, the worth of the answer will be proven if there is a continuity of development, no radical step like transferring ourselves to machines or AI simulations. Unless we do that, the continuity will be preserved and thus basic relevance of all knowledge that it developed from. Our nature is what determines the things we demand from the universe as knowledge. We are not a glorified chemical reaction. We are the most complex things that the universe has, yet our complexity is fully natural. Thus knowing our true nature is the key to the universe. We are walkers on a rope stretched over an abyss, we may fall into the helplessness of the mythical or tyranny of the obvious, or we may progressively walk forward, step by step, preserving the continuity of the development of consciousness.

(23-12-2013 05:16 PM)bemore Wrote:  What you call "meaning" What is so original about your definition of the meaning of life that is different to the billions of people who have lived before us and the billions who will live after us? Will your definition of life be valid in 2000 years time?
Why does this definition have to be original? No, I'd rather if my definition of meaning of life was so un-original, that it is ageless.
Perhaps people in 2000 years will still be able to see why my definition was valid at the time of today. At the very best, their definition will be a more generalized version of my definition. Either way, there should be a continuity of awareness, of understanding.

(23-12-2013 05:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your studies are a serious mistake - they are just making you less and less rational, less and less likely to find any evidence.

Why did you choose not to study actual science? Consider
Wow. Blink This is going to need some diplomacy.

Can you give me any definitions of what you consider rationality and evidence? Unless I'm mistaken, I haven't made any extraordinary claims right now. So how am I going away from these? Also, what do you know of my studies?

If I asked what do you think I am or am doing, I have a good idea what response I'd get, the good, bad and the off the mark stuff. I have a good idea of who am I talking to, I'm talking to a soldier, who has a gun to hold, a ditch to make a stand at and an enemy to watch out for.
Well, I have my battles too, in a way, but not as far as you're concerned. As far as you're concerned, I'm a metaphorical diplomat, not a metaphorical soldier. My job is not so straightforward as yours. You may be considered a heretic by a dozen of religions, my job is to be faithful by a dozen of "religions", including yours. Of course, there are naturally more soldiers than diplomats. They are anyway always seen as halfway traitors. You may not even have heard that any diplomats exist. Well, maybe neither had I, and maybe I considered that a great shame, so I became one.

Poetry aside, we are so different on every level, that it is not possible to expect from me the same way of thinking. A cat is not a dysfunctional dog, it's a whole different kind of an animal. I am an eccentric visionary, I don't work to fit in, I work to expand consciousness and transcend differences. I might as well get good at it. Evidence is important, but my goal is not looking for evidence, it is to have other people look for evidence where I point.
I deliberately work to combine high Openness and Intelligence on the big five scale. I boost my pattern recognition by erasing barriers of thought that people use to compartmentalize, but I leave their contents and let them interact in new ways. And at the same time I must study and contemplate to process and keep order in all the increased mental input. I simultaneously hold and reconcile (seemingly) contradictory ideas or worldviews. I risk madness to achieve genius. If people without intellect did what I do, they'd get mad. I have the intellect to make it work.

Many other people have the Intellect, but they don't have the Openness. People who score low on Openness are not well equipped to tackle the big questions. They're good at working within their framework, but not good at switching frameworks or unifying them. That is why deconversion from faith into atheism is such a great step for them. They're caught in the tyranny of the obvious, because they were liberated from the faith sooner that they could outgrow it, sooner than they could look through any tyrannies. I can't help it but beat away at their mind forg'd manacles, to open their mind a little. Let's say I deconverted in more ways than just this one. If I wasn't Open, I'd be dead from depression. It is a personal catastrophe that opens us for the first few times, but after that we, open, become openers ourselves, because we learn the trick, we see through the chameleon ego deceiving us, longing for a whole, complete world of consistency, a strong shell veiled in darkness imperceptibly, that there is no abyss to look into, no abyss to look into us.
If you want to tackle the big questions, you must either hurt a lot, or learn a lot. If you're not doing either, you're not getting anywhere new.

I must recall the words by Brian W. Aldiss, Heliconia I:
"Do you remember the tale told in Vakk, about larvae living in rare nuts? The larvae think that their rotten nuts are the whole world and when the nuts are broken, the larvae die from terror. Are you such a larva as well?"

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2013, 03:18 PM
RE: Question my beliefs.
(24-12-2013 01:35 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't quite understand the word "belief". I think I rejected that concept long ago. I am pretty sure it involves emotional attachment to the object believed in and it can be avoided.

It is called objectivity and it is the backbone of my thinking.

(24-12-2013 01:35 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Would you rather say you do not insist on this particular label very much, or that you qualify your persuasion with a less than 100 % percentage of probability?
Both are very fine things to do, I think Thumbsup

Nihilism is the closest word that I have stumbled upon that matches how I rationalise the universe. I am aware of how transient my belief is and how very meaningless it is when compared objectively to the whole universe.


(24-12-2013 01:35 PM)Luminon Wrote:  In the long distant future our descendants will be something different and will have different means, needs and expectations of the universe. However, the worth of the answer will be proven if there is a continuity of development, no radical step like transferring ourselves to machines or AI simulations. Unless we do that, the continuity will be preserved and thus basic relevance of all knowledge that it developed from. Our nature is what determines the things we demand from the universe as knowledge. We are not a glorified chemical reaction. We are the most complex things that the universe has, yet our complexity is fully natural. Thus knowing our true nature is the key to the universe. We are walkers on a rope stretched over an abyss, we may fall into the helplessness of the mythical or tyranny of the obvious, or we may progressively walk forward, step by step, preserving the continuity of the development of consciousness.

I think everything is just random glorified chemical reactions. We have survived the way we have because our species took part in the race, just like everything else has and continues to do so. There is nothing that points to there being any reason in our evolution other than reactions too environment/situations.

We add the reasoning. Not the universe.

[
(24-12-2013 01:35 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Why does this definition have to be original? No, I'd rather if my definition of meaning of life was so un-original, that it is ageless.
Perhaps people in 2000 years will still be able to see why my definition was valid at the time of today. At the very best, their definition will be a more generalized version of my definition. Either way, there should be a continuity of awareness, of understanding.


What I mean to say is the universe will continue on with its shit if we all got wiped out tomorrow. Imagine that objectively in your mind and then give the universe "meaning". It will be impossible to do so without involving yourself.

So any "meaning" to the universe will only be answers applicable to ourselves, no matter how deep or complete our understanding of the data of the universe is in the future.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2013, 05:53 PM (This post was last modified: 24-12-2013 06:43 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Question my beliefs.
(24-12-2013 03:18 PM)bemore Wrote:  Nihilism is the closest word that I have stumbled upon that matches how I rationalise the universe. I am aware of how transient my belief is and how very meaningless it is when compared objectively to the whole universe.

I think everything is just random glorified chemical reactions. We have survived the way we have because our species took part in the race, just like everything else has and continues to do so. There is nothing that points to there being any reason in our evolution other than reactions too environment/situations.

We add the reasoning. Not the universe.
I think what you call nihilism is actually reductionism. We are not glorified chemical reactions, these reactions are just a substrate for a higher form of dynamics, that is based on genetic information. Genetic information provides a substrate for brain computing. And this computer-like dynamics is a substrate for sentience, that seems to be an advanced form of self-reflective feedback loop. And this sentience can control the chemistry as much as chemistry controls it. I would not be surprised if in some individuals this sentience was a substrate for something even more elusive (this is anyway one of my working assumptions). So this is why I think it's reductionism that you describe.

We are a part of the universe. There is no good reason why wouldn't we be. So the universe itself is reasoning in its specialized areas. However, there are even higher forms of perception than reasoning. It is integration, an intrinsic knowledge that comes from interconnected state of existence, when lags of communication are eliminated to minimum. A knowledge instantly known is not reasoned.

(24-12-2013 03:18 PM)bemore Wrote:  What I mean to say is the universe will continue on with its shit if we all got wiped out tomorrow. Imagine that objectively in your mind and then give the universe "meaning". It will be impossible to do so without involving yourself.

So any "meaning" to the universe will only be answers applicable to ourselves, no matter how deep or complete our understanding of the data of the universe is in the future.
If we all got wiped tomorrow, the universe will not be the same without us. We are a legitimate part of the universe and we evolved in full accordance with its laws. Involving ourselves is legitimate. If we can give the universe a meaning, why shouldn't we? These laws mean that each part of the universe has a law that is applicable only to itself and so there is nothing inherently wrong with having laws applicable only to ourselves. However, there is nothing inherently wrong with searching for a general principle beyond all the individual laws, that unite them all on some level. Of course, such a general principle will not be easy to demonstrate on our level except in a very primitive way, such as if we tried to explain art or business to animals. If there are any unseen and general laws of the universe, humanity should reflect them somehow, react to them half or un-consciously, primitively, generally, historically, socially, psychologically, statistically, massively, anomally... So we should not reject primitive forms of "knowledge", neither should we accept them, we should examine them for general principles and test these as hypotheses scientifically. Partially this is already done today, but from the science's point of view, that is by necessity particular. We have to construct the holistic view of things as well, only that will be a worthy test subject for the science.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2013, 09:37 AM
RE: Question my beliefs.
Dodgy

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2013, 09:44 AM
RE: Question my beliefs.
Nihilism is for poopyheads. Angry

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2013, 02:47 PM
RE: Question my beliefs.
(23-12-2013 12:08 PM)bemore Wrote:  I give myself the label as a "nihilist". Nihlism has many many different meanings however to sum mine up is I do not believe that there is any intrinsic meaning to life.

Which just makes the artificial meaning we create all that much more real. Tongue

(23-12-2013 01:11 PM)DLJ Wrote:  1. The Values question:
What scale (landscape / axioms / values) do you personally use to determine what (right/wrong) course of action to take?

I try not to be a dick. I ain't always successful.

(23-12-2013 01:11 PM)DLJ Wrote:  2. The Governance question:
What (risk assessment / harm avoidance) process do you use?

I make sure I donate to the Fraternal Order of Police and local Fire Department every year so they know my name and address when shit hits the fan. ... Oh and Mossbergs.

(23-12-2013 01:11 PM)DLJ Wrote:  3. The Policy question:
What methods (if any) do you deploy to persuade others that they should follow the same system as you?

Other than the occasional "Hey! Quit being a dick!" admonishment to young 'uns, I don't. If you can't figure out how to try and not be a dick on your own then I ain't gonna be much help to you.

I am us and we is me. ... bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
14-01-2014, 11:18 PM
RE: Question my beliefs.
(23-12-2013 12:08 PM)bemore Wrote:  I am going to use this thread to explain some of my core beliefs and to attempt to explain why I think I have them. I welcome people to question my beliefs.

Nihlism.

I give myself the label as a "nihilist". Nihlism has many many different meanings however to sum mine up is I do not believe that there is a meaning to life. I think duality (right and wrong) are social constructs that cannot exist independently from us.

Why?

To keep a complicated answer as short as possible you have to think objectively and you have to look at the past, the present and the future. If you took somebody from 35 AD, 245 AD, 900 AD, 1200, 1800, 1900, and today and examined what is was that they believed about life and their very own existence their answers would be completely different. Now include yourself in that train of thought and future generations. The relatively short story of our existence is dwarfed by the universe "beginning" and getting on with its shit well before we arrived and will continue to carry on with its shit if we were here to witness it or not. I even think that as we evolve and break down our understanding of the universe more and more it will not lead any closer to an "answer"

The universe existed before "why?"

What do you mean by "think objectively"? If thinking is what happens in your head it can hardly be called "objective" unless there is some kind of theoretical or empirical justification.

If duality is indeed a social construct how come people in both the western world and the east came up with the same ideals such as "treat others how you yourself would wish to be treated"?
I agree with Chas that the basic moral sense is somewhat genetic, but there are certainly cultural variations, since people in different culture or even similar culture apply basic moral principles differently.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: