From: kcalder@blueyonder.co.uk
In message , alias
writes
>On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:52:19 -0800, FixinDixon wrote:
>understanding is irrelevant..
lol. ;)
> its not necessary for the thing to
>function..
Its not even a "thing" without understanding. This whole business of
"things being" is inextricably bound up with understanding, it is a "by
product of our over developed monkey brains".
> gravity was here long before the concept of "understanding"
>(a by product of over developed monkey brains) existed and will
>be here long after both it, and the human race, have gone.
>and i'm saying that if a thing exists, it exists. ur understanding or
>appreciation of it doesn't matter.. it exists. whether the thing is
>peaceful co-existence with ur fellow man, gravity, or ballpoint pens, a
>thing simply is or is not.
If we aren't there to point at it and class it as "existing", or even
somewhere else just noting the face that we classed it as "existing" (or
understanding that we would class it as existing) then it don't exist.
"existing" is not a concept that predates our understanding of it, and
it is a concept that will die when we are no longer around to apply it.
In a model which doesn't account for us observing and thinking, like the
one invoked when you claim that "gravity exists" regardless of our
perceptions of it, there is no sensible way to talk or think about
objective reality.
All of our notions about objective reality depend on us making them up
(or learning them) from a subjective perspective, and the result of this
is that our notions about objective reality never correlate reliably or
universally enough to start making absolutist declarations, like
"gravity exists whether you like it or not". The variations between
subjective positions, and the unreliability (in an objective sense) of
the subjective mode mean that people will always be able to pick such
declarations apart, and rightly so IMHO.
>if i blow ur brains out and destroy ur capability to understand gravity,
>will the corpse float to the ceiling?
No, from my point of view absolutely nothing will happen at all, ever
again.
If you were to blow everyone's brains out, including your own then
nothing would happen, ever again, from any possible point of view.
Simple as that.
>if a tree falls in the forest does it comprehend physics?
>of course not..
LOL.
But without us being around (somewhere, even far from the forest, just
thinking about it) to notice that its a tree falling in the woods ,
then what is it? With out us defining these words you have to start
wondering what a "tree" is, and what "falling" is. These phenomena
depend on our being around to interpret them. Just by suggesting the
thought experiment, you engaging in inevitable, subjective,
interpretation and inviting me to do the same.
Ok, so I'm rambling. But my main point is that if you want to approach
the objective world, you have to do so via the only means possible,
which are subjective, therefore declaring that "gravity objective
existence is independent of your subjective position seems a bit
nonsensical.
>and if a culture was based on higher goals than "aquire, consume, and destroy"
>its members need not understand those principles any more than the
>average person understands the base instinct that drives him
>to not only purchase a Hummer.. but drive it on city streets as if it made
>sense.
Absolutely!
>[snip-o-rama]
>>> > As a species, yes. 'Mankind' went through several species before homo
>>> > sapiens sapiens came about. I don't doubt that, as long as we don't
>>> > destroy the planet, other species will evolve, but a species cannot
>>> > evolve within itself. It can only create new species.
>>> not true.. unless ur going to mire us in a discussion of definitions and
>>> nonsense along those lines.. clearly the intent was to suggest that we
>>> (human beings) are in a constant state of evolution..
>> Bear in mind my previous posts - I LOVE definition and clarity, and so
>> I don't consider it nonsense.
>at this point in my current stint of reality modulation i have come to
>realize all definitions are transitional and based solely in the
>perceptions of the flawed creature that utters them.
This is very true, but its the best we can do. We can however, refine
them in terms of how well the work for us. We can't have ideal
definitions, but we can certainly make the ones we have more useful!
>but i'm probably crazy. i'm not even sure i'm real.. let alone the rest
>of u.
Scepticism, when combined with inquisitiveness can be wonderfully
productive.
>> This species will NOT BE Homo Sapiens
>> Sapiens. It will be another different species. Perhaps I wasn't
>> clear enough, so apologies fo that.
>as my daddy used to say: "same fuckin difference"
>IMO what the biologists decide to classify a successful mutation as is
>unimportant.. it will be the same thing regardless of its name.
It should be clear by now that I don't believe that you can even begin
to talk about something unless you are clear on what you named it. I
don't even know what "it" "is" until we start working on a definition.
If you mean "name" in an extended sense, then IMHO it *will* be a very
different thing if we define it, or "name" it differently.
ta,
--
Kevin Calder
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
