A question for scientists: Primary and Secondary qualities

  • Thread starter Thread starter Interesting Ian
  • Start date Start date
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogance v. Modesty

ceptimus said:
You don't get it do you? I have no choice in the matter. ;)
Click to expand...
then that is just a waste of energy, something that evolution would have killed by now.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogance v. Modesty

LuxFerum said:

then that is just a waste of energy, something that evolution would have killed by now.
Click to expand...

In this thread you must use bigger and more obscure words than that. So evolutionism and antideterminism would be appropriate!
Energy must become application of sufficient effort.
;)
 
Ian,

If we only have one life should we make more of it than if we had many lives? If so then why?
Click to expand...
Let me turn the question around - if you believe you have plenty of lives, why not waste this one? Why not try experiencing "being continuously drunk for 30 years"? Why not try "life as a pedophile?" Why not experiment with different ways to die? You love "Groundhog Day" Ian - didn't you get the message? It doesn't matter how many lives you have - you just have to do *one* thing right.

If you really believe that you're like Bill Murray (stuck in the middle of an endless loop of lives) then *this current life* has almost no meaning. Go ahead, waste it - what harm does it do? What's the hurry? Where are you (ultimately) trying to get too? Why would it matter if you take a few extra lives to get there? Why not try to become the first man ever to dive off the Tower of London into a block of concrete? If you die (likely), no harm done. You'll be back soon enough. If you don't die, you'll be famous! Go ahead, what have you got to lose?
 
Loki said:
Ian,


Let me turn the question around - if you believe you have plenty of lives, why not waste this one?
Click to expand...


Well let's say my answer is the same answer as yours would be if you were asked why not waste your one and only life. As long as you don't beg the question of course by saying it's your only life.

Why not try experiencing "being continuously drunk for 30 years"? Why not try "life as a pedophile?" Why not experiment with different ways to die? You love "Groundhog Day" Ian - didn't you get the message? It doesn't matter how many lives you have - you just have to do *one* thing right.
Click to expand...

Have you finished frothing at the lips and ranting? All this is of course wholly irrelevant.

If you really believe that you're like Bill Murray (stuck in the middle of an endless loop of lives) then *this current life* has almost no meaning.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: yeah. Sorry, but you're being seriously stupid. How on earth could the fact that I have had previous lives and I will have future lives possibly detract from this life whatsoever?
 
Ian,

(Drinking again?)
Sorry, but you're being seriously stupid.
Click to expand...
Won't be the first time.

How on earth could the fact that I have had previous lives and I will have future lives possibly detract from this life whatsoever?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand me - I'm not saying that this current life of yours *must* be "less important" that any other. It can be just as important, or more important, that any other of your lives. The point is (please read carefully, you've missed this twice already), that there's no apparent reason why you can't *choose* to waste a life or two. Sure, you might the sort of "essential self" that says each life is precise, and strive to maximize each one. Or you may be like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, and decide that (since you have an apparently endless supply of them) why not waste a few doing meaningless/trivial/dangerous/violent things?

By the way, this is an argument in favour of your position for *not* remembering past lives - since you can't remember them, you can't be sure you really do have more than one (so you better behave like this is your one and only!)
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arrogance v. Modesty

Dancing David said:


In this thread you must use bigger and more obscure words than that. So evolutionism and antideterminism would be appropriate!
Energy must become application of sufficient effort.
;)
Click to expand...
I'm at the top of my game here.:D
 
Loki said:
Ian,

(Drinking again?)

Won't be the first time.


You misunderstand me - I'm not saying that this current life of yours *must* be "less important" that any other. It can be just as important, or more important, that any other of your lives. The point is (please read carefully, you've missed this twice already), that there's no apparent reason why you can't *choose* to waste a life or two. Sure, you might the sort of "essential self" that says each life is precise, and strive to maximize each one. Or you may be like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, and decide that (since you have an apparently endless supply of them) why not waste a few doing meaningless/trivial/dangerous/violent things?

By the way, this is an argument in favour of your position for *not* remembering past lives - since you can't remember them, you can't be sure you really do have more than one (so you better behave like this is your one and only!)
Click to expand...

Loki,

First thing is, as you pointed out, I cannot be sure that reincarnation takes place. Maybe even there is no life after death. I don't believe this, but obviously I cannot rule this possibility out. So just on this consideration alone it may perhaps be unwise to "waste" my present (and only) life. Or perhaps it is wise since they would then be no purpose to our lives and the Universe . . .but anyway.

Secondly, there seems to be an unstated premise in your argument. Namely that in the entirety of our existence, whether we have one life or many, there is at least one life (but not all lives) we should not "waste". Therefore if this is our only life, we should not waste this one, but if we have many lives we might as well (enjoy ourselves?) and waste this life and not waste some future life. Or alternatively perhaps there is a past life which I haven't wasted, therefore I should again waste this life, but this time I should waste all my future lives as well.

Now are you beginning to see how daft all this sounds?

Either it is desirable or not desirable to "waste" our present lives. Whether we have lived before, and whether we will live again in future lives, really has nothing to do with it.

Also bear in mind that in any future incarnations I might not get any opportunity not to "waste" my life. Perhaps in a future incarnation I will be less intelligent, or have less of the abilities to prevent my life not being a "waste". Perhaps I will be born in a third world country. Hell, perhaps in many of my future lives I will be aborted before getting born!
 
Ian,

Or perhaps it is wise since they would then be no purpose to our lives and the Universe...
Click to expand...
This alone shows that you don't understand the alternative being presented to you. If you can define "purpose to our lives" without assuming your conclusion, I think you'd find that a materialist is perfectly capable of "finding purpose". Try it...you might be surprised!

Now are you beginning to see how daft all this sounds?
Click to expand...
Oh, I fully agree with you that the entire thing sounds entirely daft - that's my point. You reject it because "it sounds daft". I'm asking you how you *know* it's daft. Your answer, as it must be, is that you don't.

Again, Ian, its about the number of assumptions you make. We both have an initial (as yet unproven) assumption. Mine is that "one human = one life". Yours is "one self = multiple lives". That's the end of it for me, but you *must* add further assumptions - for example, you have assumed reincarnation, and you have also assumed "isn't daft".

Perhaps in a future incarnation I will be less intelligent,
Click to expand...
There's a reply just begging to be typed right here, but I'll let it go...
 
The importance of past incarnations

Ian,
Sorry Titus, but I feel quite strongly about this issue. On a personal level I would absolutely love to remember my previous lives. But I scarcely think that doing so is advantageous in terms of "soul making"
Click to expand...
Why? My own views of reincarnation and personal evolution would predict: the more insights you have into your own past, the better it will be for your development. You are still the same soul, with the exact same history, even if you lose all conscious memory of it. My model of personal evolution simply depends on the idea that knowledge of one's own backgrounds is basically good. Maybe not always instantly (knowledge may be confusing at first), but certainly in the long run. I believe in truth; in its emancipating and empowering qualities.

I'm not sure with what you mean by "soul making" though.

In my theory, you're not supposed to be very different in every life, you're just supposed to go ahead on the basis of your past. The changes in your environment, body, etc. aren't goals in themselves, but just tools of a continuing personal evolution.

Your previous lives are much more important than you think.

Let's leave it at that.

Best wishes,

Titus
 
Loki said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or perhaps it is wise since they would then be no purpose to our lives and the Universe...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This alone shows that you don't understand the alternative being presented to you. If you can define "purpose to our lives" without assuming your conclusion, I think you'd find that a materialist is perfectly capable of "finding purpose". Try it...you might be surprised!
Click to expand...

You apparently don't understand what the word purpose means. The purpose of a hammer is to bash things. You can do the same thing with a stone. But the purpose of a stone isn't to bash things. You can impose your own meaning to life, but your life hasn't got a purpose in your interpretation of reality. As Bertrand Russell has said:

That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand (Russell, 1961).
Click to expand...

I don't agree with him, especially the last part which is utterly ludicrous, but I think you would agree with him. And if you agree with him then you are acknowledging there is no purpose to our lives or the Universe.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now are you beginning to see how daft all this sounds?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh, I fully agree with you that the entire thing sounds entirely daft - that's my point. You reject it because "it sounds daft".
Click to expand...

No! No!! No!!! :mad: I damn well gave you my reasons, reasons you've deliberately omitted in your post!


I'm asking you how you *know* it's daft. Your answer, as it must be, is that you don't.
Click to expand...

No, I explained! Allow me to paste it in again.


"there seems to be an unstated premise in your argument. Namely that in the entirety of our existence, whether we have one life or many, there is at least one life (but not all lives) we should not "waste". Therefore if this is our only life, we should not waste this one, but if we have many lives we might as well (enjoy ourselves?) and waste this life and not waste some future life. Or alternatively perhaps there is a past life which I haven't wasted, therefore I should again waste this life, but this time I should waste all my future lives as well".


Now tell me how you justify your premise?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps in a future incarnation I will be less intelligent,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There's a reply just begging to be typed right here, but I'll let it go...
Click to expand...

No don't let it go, I want to know your opinion. You think I'm stupid simply because my views on this subject (and incidentally most subjects) are at variance with the majority of people?? Or for some other reason? Let me know.
 
Ian,

You apparently don't understand what the word purpose means.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I woud understand if you'd just define the word, as I asked you to. Give me a definition of "purpose" that *does* automatically include *your* conclusion. If you can't, then you're just defiing "purpose" to mean what you want it to.

And if you agree with him then you are acknowledging there is no purpose to our lives or the Universe.
Click to expand...
So your argument is, in essence, that "purpose" is a word that can only be defined in a context "greater than a single life"? Perhaps we should just leave this alone - I suspect we simply will fail to agree on what "purpose" means. I'm likely to define it in temrs of things that can be seen/felt, you're likely to define it in terms of "might be/what if".

Now tell me how you justify your premise?
Click to expand...
I'm confused - which premise? That there is "no life after life?" Or the premise that "if you only hav eone life you shouldn't waste it?" Or the premise that "If you have more than one life, it's okay to waste a few?"

You think I'm stupid simply because my views on this subject (and incidentally most subjects) are at variance with the majority of people??
Click to expand...
It was, of course, a throw away line. But since you want to make something serious of it...No, I don't think you're "stupid" at all. Stubborn, certainly. Educated, in a narrow band. Well read on "pet" topics. Far too sure of your own opinion for your own good. Amazingly bad at understanding any position that you don't hold as "truth". I'd suggest that you should archive some of your JREF threads, and reread them when you turn 40. Trust me, you'll be facinated to look back and see just how you used to carry on with people way back in 2003.
 
For you, or me, he doesn't. :)

Feel free to continue to ignore the one "think" you actually know. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom