• My thoughts about existence; tell yours too.
    214 replies, posted
[QUOTE]these souls are not in our bodies but in some other dimension. Our brains have electrical patterns that act as receivers of this undetectable signal constantly emitted by our souls, everywhere in the universe, which projects our personalities and consciousness onto our earthly bodies.[/QUOTE] Sounds like you tried to pass that off as scientific. Either way, it's still retarded.
We don't exist, plain and simple. The word is rather stupid for defining everything.
Those are horrible opinions on existence. You sound like a bloody idiot when you say that.
[QUOTE=bravehat;25265979]Sounds like you tried to pass that off as scientific. Either way, it's still retarded.[/QUOTE] "scientific" terms are usually very well defined and don't require additional explanation; using them doesn't mean that the text is supposed to be scientific, it's just a good way to express your thoughts accurately
[QUOTE=DrMortician;25265992]We don't exist, plain and simple. The word is rather stupid for defining everything.[/QUOTE] No it's a pretty good word to be honest, if it doesn't exist then it's not real.
[QUOTE=ThePuska;25265886]I've never even really thought about that. It does indeed seem as if my consciousness resided somewhere around my eyes. I suppose it could be linked to the fact that our eyes are the most prominent source of sensory input - though even then I wonder if a blind, or a blind & deaf person would place their consciousness somewhere else. The modern notion that all intelligence stems from the brain could also play some part. Heart and I think liver have also been important to emotions - and breath is associated with life and soul in pretty much every culture ever. When you say that something comes from the "bottom of your heart", it's obvious that you're feeling the emotion with your brain - but it really does feel as if it comes from the bottom of your heart. I think that culture could affect the placement of the feeling of being to some extent.[/QUOTE] You're wrong. Emotions don't come from the heart, that's just some romantic bullshit.
I'm pretty sure what he means is that because of all the "From the bottom of my heart" type shit society uses that the brain creates physiological effects that impersonate the saying, giving the impression emotion comes from the heart.
Ego cogito, ergo sum. (But how can you prove it, baww.)
[QUOTE=Hypernova;25265941]It was just one of the recent hypotheses I came up with recently. I never even said I believed it. [/QUOTE] It's called the collective consciousness hypothesis. [QUOTE=ThePuska;25266013]"scientific" terms are usually very well defined and don't require additional explanation; using them doesn't mean that the text is supposed to be scientific, it's just a good way to express your thoughts accurately[/QUOTE] Except a dimension is very well defined. Yet, I don't think he's trying to say that these undetectable, metaphorical soul trains are connecting me from -50 arbitrary units of measurement on the x axis.[QUOTE=sp00ks;25266121]You're wrong. Emotions don't come from the heart, that's just some romantic bullshit.[/QUOTE] If I remember correctly it actually stemmed from ancient Greece when they believed the heart to be our brain. [QUOTE=ThePuska;25265886]I've never even really thought about that. It does indeed seem as if my consciousness resided somewhere around my eyes. [/QUOTE] This can be explained because the human sense of body positioning is generally inaccurate and retarded. [img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3926654/INFO/1282972497632.jpg[/img_thumb] Read the rubber hand illusion one. [QUOTE=esalaka;25266163]Ego cogito, ergo sum. (But how can you prove it, baww.)[/QUOTE] Stars are physically incapable of thinking, therefor they don't exist by that logic.
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;25266210]Stars are physically incapable of thinking, therefor they don't exist by that logic.[/QUOTE] Neither I or the original conceiver of that idea ever implied that what does not think does not exist. The opposite of the claim "I think, therefore I am" is "I am not, therefore I don't think".
[QUOTE=bravehat;25266042]No it's a pretty good word to be honest, if it doesn't exist then it's not real.[/QUOTE] It's a hokey assumption based on perception. If you ever do enough acid, you'll realize perception isn't an accurate way to judge what's "real."
[QUOTE=esalaka;25266235]Neither I or the original conceiver of that idea ever implied that what does not think does not exist. The opposite of the claim "I think, therefore I am" is "I am not, therefore I don't think".[/QUOTE] No. The sentence is "I think, therefor I am" This isn't an implication, this is a direct cause-effect relationship [url]http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=therefore[/url] I think -> I am cause -> effect So, if you negate the cause I don't think -> I am not cause -> effect It is directly stating that thinking causes you to be. There is no implication, this is the literal meaning. [editline]09:40AM[/editline] [QUOTE=DrMortician;25266322]It's a hokey assumption based on perception. If you ever do enough acid, you'll realize perception isn't an accurate way to judge what's "real."[/QUOTE] Is it not the only way?
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;25266326] Is it not the only way?[/QUOTE] What I'm saying is a result of years of drug abuse. I'm not telling you what to think lol. I'm just saying perception isn't a good way to measure reality.
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;25266210]Except a dimension is very well defined. Yet, I don't think he's trying to say that these undetectable, metaphorical soul trains are connecting me from -50 arbitrary units of measurement on the x axis.[/QUOTE] True. [QUOTE=RichardCQ;25266210]This can be explained because the human sense of body positioning is generally inaccurate and retarded. [img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3926654/INFO/1282972497632.jpg[/img_thumb] Read the rubber hand illusion one.[/QUOTE] I'm aware of these, and they're partly why I think that the placement of our consciousness could be affected by culture. It doesn't seem like the way we perceive ourselves is hard-wired into us.
Oh it's this thread again I could swear we get at least one thread like this monthly. I'll just contribute in with my opinion: no it's not a videogame, we have eyes so we SEE STUFF THROUGH THEM and there's probably no god so I'll just rule that out too.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;25266345]What I'm saying is a result of years of drug abuse. I'm not telling you what to think lol. I'm just saying perception isn't a good way to measure reality.[/QUOTE] Yes, you said this. But the thing is, the only way we [B]can[/B] judge reality is by perception. [QUOTE=ThePuska;25266346]It doesn't seem like the way we perceive ourselves is hard-wired into us.[/QUOTE] It is hard-wired into us. In fact, it is the wiring that makes us. You perceive yourself through long lines of networked sensors constantly being triggered by your environment. The literal placement of your mental avatar is likely just a byproduct of being taught about where the brain was at a young age, in which case I suppose you're right, but that's more-or-less a delusion. [QUOTE=Fippe;25266393]Oh it's this thread again I could swear we get at least one thread like this monthly. I'll just contribute in with my opinion: no it's not a videogame, we have eyes so we SEE STUFF THROUGH THEM and there's probably no god so I'll just rule that out too.[/QUOTE] Please stay and have some lemonade.
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;25266425]Yes, you said this. But the thing is, the only way we [B]can[/B] judge reality is by perception. [/QUOTE] Which, if the means of examining something is flawed, then we'll never know for sure, will we?
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;25266326]No. The sentence is "I think, therefor I am" This isn't an implication, this is a direct cause-effect relationship [url]http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=therefore[/url] I think -> I am cause -> effect So, if you negate the cause I don't think -> I am not cause -> effect It is directly stating that thinking causes you to be. There is no implication, this is the literal meaning.[/QUOTE] "Cogito, ergo sum" suggests that the most convincing evidence for one's existence is self-awareness. Being able to ask the question "how do I know I exist?" means that there's something that can ask the question. It doesn't mean that things that don't think couldn't exist. It means that you can't be sure of their existence because you're only getting indirect information about them via your senses.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;25266434]Which, if the means of examining something is flawed, then we'll never know for sure, will we?[/QUOTE] Therefor, why does it matter? [QUOTE=ThePuska;25266436]"Cogito, ergo sum" suggests that the most convincing evidence for one's existence is self-awareness. Being able to ask the question "how do I know I exist?" means that there's something that can ask the question. It doesn't mean that things that don't think couldn't exist. It means that you can't be sure of their existence because you're only getting indirect information about them via your senses.[/QUOTE] That is a lot less vague than a single sentence translated from Latin. Thank you.
[QUOTE=DrMortician;25266322]It's a hokey assumption based on perception. If you ever do enough acid, you'll realize perception isn't an accurate way to judge what's "real."[/QUOTE] No perception isn't. Collective perception is.
[QUOTE=AmericanInfantry;25257564]It bedazzles me[/QUOTE] lol [editline]03:30PM[/editline] [QUOTE=bravehat;25266839]No perception isn't. Collective perception is.[/QUOTE] This. We verify each-other perceptions, and also have those perceptions verified by our technology. Sometimes tech can show our perceptions to be lacking, i.e. the infra red, but this doesn't suddenly mean all of reality is an existential nightmare. It's just we never had to evolve to cope with that part of the light spectrum. Now we do use it (cosmology etc), and we have tools to compensate for that.
When there is no sign that something doesn't exist, and there is no way to prove it doesn't exist, why not believe it exists? For this, there is no reason to think I don't exist. If there is no sign that something does exist, and there is no way to prove it does exist, why believe it exists? For this I am atheist.
We are an accident, a mishap of nature, nothing more.
very interesting subject. as for our existence i guess we should have some sort of a meaning too, I mean hands down so far we are the next best thing to God himself, right?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;25267023]very interesting subject. as for our existence i guess we should have some sort of a meaning too, I mean hands down so far we are the next best thing to God himself, right?[/QUOTE] lol what? And why do things have to have meaning? Does the colour yellow have a meaning?
[QUOTE=Kade;25267062]And why do things have to have meaning? Does the colour yellow have a meaning?[/QUOTE] "Don't eat this snow"
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;25267023]very interesting subject. as for our existence i guess we should have some sort of a meaning too, I mean hands down so far we are the next best thing to God himself, right?[/QUOTE] Why does we have to have a meaning? We have no purpose, absolutely none, zip, a resounding amount of fuck all. And what makes god so great? he committed genocide against his so called "best" creation, forced acts of inbreeding at every turn, and just randomly smites cities for the shits and giggles.
Damn, this thread is depressing.
[QUOTE=Juggernog;25267114]Damn, this thread is depressing.[/QUOTE] So is life deal with it.
[QUOTE=Juggernog;25267114]Damn, this thread is depressing.[/QUOTE] Only if you let it depress you, otherwise it's fine. Can't see why it would depress anyone anyway.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.