Does anything exist?

[SpuriusMaximus]

Semantics.

Dude, if you don't even know the difference between semantics and a fallacy -- hint, the latter means broken logic -- then I believe you're not even qualified to be having this discussion. Or any discussion on this board.

Plus, it's not even particularly interesting. That people who don't even start to understand logic believe illogical things isn't even much of a thing to learn. It's in fact pretty much tautological.

Not to mention that the very objection that something is "semantics" is itself one of the most idiotic objections and itself a red flag. "Semantics" means "meaning". And the only purpose of a communication is to convey some meaning. So the objection to someone caring about "semantics" means what? That the thing in your favour is that you don't even understand the meaning of what you write means? That someone else just needs to not even understand what it means, to see things your way? Or what?

 

[IanS]

I do not know anyone who flatlined but I know lots of people who did have claimed they had spiritual experiences while they were apparently dead.

How many times do you think people have claimed things that are untrue?

If we just limit it to religious beliefs, then since biblical times (never mind all of humanity before that), how many people have claimed to see spirits, demons, gods, angels? How many have claimed they had a communication with them. Hearing them and speaking to them etc. And then there are all the countless people who claim to have witnessed miracles, such as the Miracle of Fatima and suchlike ... there are hundreds of cases like that, involving many thousands of people ... where they all swear that they witnessed the miracle ... in fact there are lots of examples of that with Jesus in the bible!

Whenever any of those cases have been available for genuine independent scientific investigation to check if the claims were true, what do you think the result has ever been? Out of all of the millions of claims, how many do you think have ever turned out to be true? I won't bother to tell you the answer to that question ... it would be far better if you admitted the answer yourself, but I bet you will refuse to admit it.

 

[IanS]

We will all eventually die, so is there no point in living overall? Some people are just interested in philosophy, like many people have hobbies. They can even earn money by teaching philosophy, sure it's not the most profitable job, but there are plenty of jobs with far worse salaries.

OK, well that's fine as far as it goes ... study whatever you like, particularly if it's just a hobby. But personally, the more I've seen from philosophical arguments on forums like this, and seen from philosophers arguing their ideas on YouTube, I'm becoming less & less convinced that it's a valid use of taxpayers money to fund degrees and research qualifications in philosophy. I think it's even less valid to spend taxpayers money teaching degrees in religion of course.

Humans are curious beings, they want to know everything about our world, which obviously has mysteries and people want to think and ask questions about them. If something is meaningless and uninteresting for you, it isn't necessarily true for other people.

Sure. But that's exactly why you should be studying science (even as a hobby!), and NOT philosophy!

Look, let me take a topical issue which at present is of great concern all over the world, ie Coronavirus … how much help do you think philosophy has been in saving any of us from that? How much help do you think religious belief has been (actually in that case we should ask how much of a massive & quite lethal hinderance do you think religion has been!) … and then ask; how much help have we got from science? … I really do not need to answer that question do I … but you do need to answer it!

 

[Belz...]

The existence of something is a brute fact, i.e. fact that has no explanation.

Then why do you ask 'why is there something instead of nothing?'? You've got your brute fact.

 

[IanS]

Yes, exactly. Labeling something as "scientific" doesn't necessarily mean it's actually science. Nor does the title of scientist confer the quality of infallible reason on someone. But the term does give the appearance of authority and credibility to people who put their faith in the idea of science, rather than applying scientific thinking to the question at hand.

It is scientific if it's published in any of the main research journals!

"Infallible reasoning"? What's the point of saying that about any genuine scientists, when nobody has infallible "anything". You are trying to set up a straw-man.

And then you are accusing a group of unnamed unidentified people (who?, where?) of simply taking science upon unreasonable mistaken trust when you say they have too easily accepted the "appearance of authority" and hence stopped thinking scientifically for themselves ... who are you talking about? And are you actually trying to claim that YOU are thinking scientifically for yourself and as a result you are rejecting what you believe to be too much credit given to published core science?... is that what you are really trying to claim for yourself?

Lets deal with all the mess of that stuff before bothering with the rest of whatever you wrote. And by the way, in case people have not noticed, some of us have these sort of anti-science discussions with you before, several times iirc.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

For example: 'Why is there something instead of nothing?'. Do you seriously think that some quantum fluctuation or something like that is the satisfying answer, considering that it's obviously something?

Well, if you really want to apply some thought to that, here's a fly in the ointment: WHERE would that "nothing" exist?

Because if you have even the most empty space with the same rules as this universe, you have at the very least virtual particles. Plus even without them, space ITSELF has properies such as spin. It is entangled with other pieces of empty space. Etc.

If you have space-time at all, then having "nothing" there is just impossible. It may or may not be a universe with stuff like stars and galaxies and whatnot, but it fundamentally can't be "nothing".

The place where you could really have "nothing" is really non-existent. You would have to not even have the empty space, i.e., not have a universe at all.


Which, incidentally also illustrates why you really need science to even think (correctly) about the problem in the first place. Philosophy alone is good and fine, but it won't get you anywhere with that question.

 

[Scorpion]

Dude, if you don't even know the difference between semantics and a fallacy -- hint, the latter means broken logic -- then I believe you're not even qualified to be having this discussion. Or any discussion on this board.

Oh yea ! well I started this discussion, and I have got all you brainy people discussing if nothing exist.

 

[suren]

Well, if you really want to apply some thought to that, here's a fly in the ointment: WHERE would that "nothing" exist?

Nothing means it's not a thing. This means you cannot imagine nothing, but I don't thing that it invalidates the question why something exists. Another related question is whether everything could be different, for example the laws of physics, fundamental constants, etc. Other question is why the laws of physics seem to be regular and why we don't have a chaos instead. Even if we knew all the laws of nature (which I doubt) we won't be able to explain why they exist and why they are as we know them.

 

[Belz...]

Oh yea ! well I started this discussion, and I have got all you brainy people discussing if nothing exist.

Actually you got all of us smart people telling you the answer.

 

[Belz...]

Nothing means it's not a thing. This means you cannot imagine nothing, but I don't thing that it invalidates the question why something exists.

No, I told you what invalidates it. I guess you didn't like the answer.

Or more to the point, those who like philosophy don't want answers.

 

[suren]

OK, well that's fine as far as it goes ... study whatever you like, particularly if it's just a hobby. But personally, the more I've seen from philosophical arguments on forums like this, and seen from philosophers arguing their ideas on YouTube, I'm becoming less & less convinced that it's a valid use of taxpayers money to fund degrees and research qualifications in philosophy. I think it's even less valid to spend taxpayers money teaching degrees in religion of course.





Sure. But that's exactly why you should be studying science (even as a hobby!), and NOT philosophy!

Look, let me take a topical issue which at present is of great concern all over the world, ie Coronavirus … how much help do you think philosophy has been in saving any of us from that? How much help do you think religious belief has been (actually in that case we should ask how much of a massive & quite lethal hinderance do you think religion has been!) … and then ask; how much help have we got from science? … I really do not need to answer that question do I … but you do need to answer it!

Even science is based on philosophical ideas, there is even a philosophy of science.

Just read this: Why Study Philosophy?.

 

[bruto]

Nothing means it's not a thing. This means you cannot imagine nothing, but I don't thing that it invalidates the question why something exists. Another related question is whether everything could be different, for example the laws of physics, fundamental constants, etc. Other question is why the laws of physics seem to be regular and why we don't have a chaos instead. Even if we knew all the laws of nature (which I doubt) we won't be able to explain why they exist and why they are as we know them.

I think it does invalidate the question. To ask why implies an option, and nothing has, is,does nothing. The very question is absurd because it attributes something to nothing.

 

[Belz...]

Even science is based on philosophical ideas, there is even a philosophy of science.

It moved on since then. It surpassed its origins.

Let it go.

 

[Scorpion]

How many times do you think people have claimed things that are untrue?

If we just limit it to religious beliefs, then since biblical times (never mind all of humanity before that), how many people have claimed to see spirits, demons, gods, angels? How many have claimed they had a communication with them. Hearing them and speaking to them etc. And then there are all the countless people who claim to have witnessed miracles, such as the Miracle of Fatima and suchlike ... there are hundreds of cases like that, involving many thousands of people ... where they all swear that they witnessed the miracle ... in fact there are lots of examples of that with Jesus in the bible!

Whenever any of those cases have been available for genuine independent scientific investigation to check if the claims were true, what do you think the result has ever been? Out of all of the millions of claims, how many do you think have ever turned out to be true? I won't bother to tell you the answer to that question ... it would be far better if you admitted the answer yourself, but I bet you will refuse to admit it.

I am not a liar , I am a truth seeker. I dismiss anything that does not make sense. But I have had psychic experiences all my life.

 

[IanS]

If you do not know how consciousness arises, you do not know its not from a spirit.

Apart from the fallacy of "argument from ignorance" (as well as suggesting two claimed "possibilities" are equally likely, when they are clearly not - a miraculous "spirit" is not equallly likely to a brain and sensory system (where we can all see and study the brain and the sensory system) - something that non-scientists (that means you in this case) really need to understand in these forums (in all arguments in general, ie anywhere, about anything) is that we don't "KNOW" anything as a matter of absolute literal certainty. If we did know things as certainties, then we'd be able to show literal "proofs" for such claims ... be we have no actual 100% literal proofs ... not even in maths! (in maths we call things "proofs", but where they are related at all to observed reality, all of those "proofs" rely on an underlying unproven assumption of some sort ... so it's not ever actually a literal proof).

What we do have though, is overwhelming unarguable evidence for all sorts of explantions in science (and anywhere else outside of science too). And that's all we ever need.

However, as related to your above post - whilst we do not "know" for sure exactly how consciousness arises, ie in the sense of not having a complete literal proof, we do have a lot of evidence and a lot of credible explanation from decent published neuroscience, psychology and medicine (which are the softer areas of science that normally try to study and explain "consciousness") ... and all of that evidence is consistent with consciousness being an "effect" that most higher order animals have as a result of the sensory system exchanging chemical "information" with the BRAIN (ie "information" just meaning various chemical changes/interactions, which also involve electrical changes too)

All of the genuine evidence strongly suggests that what we experiences as "consciousness" is merely a very highly evolved and highly advanced effect arising from the chemistry of the brain interacting with the sensory system.

On the other hand, there is zero evidence that any such thing as "spirits" even exist (let alone that they have anything to do with "consciousness").

 

[Belz...]

I am not a liar , I am a truth seeker.

Well, that's a lie. You don't seek the truth. You want confirmation of what you already believe, which is why when you say:

I dismiss anything that does not make sense.

...what you mean is that you dismiss anything contrary to those beliefs.

But I have had psychic experiences all my life.

And? Plenty of people have "experiences" that turn out to be false, for a variety of reasons. That you've had those experiences doesn't mean that your interpretation of those experiences are true. You need to go beyond those interpretations and seek to test them against reality. But of course you don't do that, because you know that if you actually made such a test they would turn up negative.

 

[Scorpion]

All of the genuine evidence strongly suggests that what we experiences as "consciousness" is merely a very highly evolved and highly advanced effect arising from the chemistry of the brain interacting with the sensory system.

So in your world view is thought cause by chemicals. Or do you consider your thoughts are your own, and you can think freely regardless of chemicals.?

I have been to that school, and was put on heavy medication for schizophrenia in 1969. But defied the psychiatrists and fought my way off those drugs, then became an electronics engineer.

It is my experience that I do the thinking, not my brain or its chemical content.

 

[8enotto]

Situations requiring immediate attention and actions cannot afford philosophy. A tsunami or an illness spreading through a population isn't a time to set and discuss if its real or whatever.
Its time to get real solutions in action now, even if only to prevent it getting worse.

A process to convert something from one state to another might start with some philosophy based on known chemicals or processes. When the time to act comes its all science.
When it happens its because of science.

Waxing poetic endlessly about some etherical concept and mentally exploring all options may be fun but in the end should it accomplish anything sciences will be involved.
As a starting point it has some value. But not always.

 

[IanS]

So in your world view is thought cause by chemicals. Or do you consider your thoughts are your own, and you can think freely regardless of chemicals.?

I have been to that school, and was put on heavy medication for schizophrenia in 1969. But defied the psychiatrists and fought my way off those drugs, then became an electronics engineer.

It is my experience that I do the thinking, not my brain or its chemical content.

You are entirely made of "chemicals" LOL !

So the experience that we have called "thinking" (or "consciousness) really cannot be anything else other than the result of chemical reactions.

If you are getting into that argument which now seems popular about whether or not we really have "freewill" (e.g. freedom to decide what thoughts we have about anything), then that is a different subject. But if you want to know what I think about that, then on the face of it at least I don't think the argument against freewill actually stands up.

But ... Yes - what we experience as thinking and consciousness is, I expect, just a sensation or effect, albeit a pretty complicated one, that arises purely from the way the brain interacts with the sensory system (and possibly also with other parts of the body such as the nervous system). I don't think there's any more to it than that.


By the way; I don't think you are a liar. But I suspect you just enjoy thinking that the world has all sorts of mystical qualities.

 

[Belz...]

So in your world view is thought cause by chemicals. Or do you consider your thoughts are your own, and you can think freely regardless of chemicals.?

Your words betray your thoughts: the real answer doesn't satisfy your need to be "more" than just boring physical stuff, so you believe otherwise.

Don't you think that's a childish need? When we grow up we're supposed to accept how things are rather than take shelter in fictions. We know thoughts can be altered chemically and mechanically, whereas "spirits" are not observed entities. So what if thoughts and consciousness are just chemical reactions? All life is chemical reaction, and life is awesome. Do you think an antlion, or a hummingbird, or a humpback whale, is more boring when you think of them in terms of what they're made of? Or is it more relevant and important to consider what they do? It's the same thing with humans.

I have been to that school, and was put on heavy medication for schizophrenia in 1969. But defied the psychiatrists and fought my way off those drugs, then became an electronics engineer.

That raises the worrying possibility that you're not mentally well. You really should take care of yourself better. Lots of bad things happen to schizophreniacs off their meds, and their loved ones.

It is my experience that I do the thinking, not my brain or its chemical content.

You ARE your brain. You're creating a distinction where none exists. "You" has to be something, after all, right?