Emma_85 wrote:Just something I’m interested in right now... there are some modern philosophers around, who claim that we will never know how consciousness first came about.
Needless to say I don’t share this view, because what it all come down to is: what was the reason? and I think the reason a reason can’t be found is that there is none.
copain wrote:Only if you bring a creator into it, then all make sense, for this creator must have a plan with this world !
I realy don´t know what about
dolphins and whales (like humans and apes they are mamals with a distinctive social behavior) but the hard fact is, that only humans has this highly distinctive consiousness we talk about. And therfore I think consiousness is not as old as you argue.
But in one point I do not agree with you at all, you write „Chance to me is not that there are some things that happen for no reason, everything has a reason in this universe“
But for what reason ? It only happens!
Regarding to evolution it is the same, evolution is blind, live depends on „try and error“ but a deeper reason I can not see!
Only if you bring a creator into it, then all make sense, for this creator must have a plan with this world !
yes, a soul would be a good example.
i do not think that consciousness is just a physical thing. i think it cannot exist without soul.
If you read what I say about consciousness above, do you agree that animals have consciousness or not? Because if they do they would have a soul too, wouldn’t they?
I’m also curious, what do you think about evolution? Because consciousness would have come about gradually, before even the ‘I’ came about. When did ‘humans’ first have souls then?
you seek an absolute truth, and such one cannot be found.
it is truly us who give the univerese any purpose. the univerese is not causal in my opinion. it is us who grasp it that way.
As for birds or lizards, it is difficult to tell, but only because they are dissimilar to us.
in that book the japanese people are ready to die instantly, almost not unwilingly.
Kalailan wrote:anyway, why should anyone want to have a good life?
according to what you say, after one dies nothing is left of him (i'm talking about the person, not the things that he has done or like that). if so, what difference does it make if you have a good life or a bad life, except to your subjective feeling, of which nothing will remain?
mingshey wrote:If we find a simple pattern to match many a few stimuli we feel comforted. That's why we feel F=ma and Fugue beautiful.
Kalailan wrote:-er- i am not sure i understand what you posted mingshey.
this sentence in particular:mingshey wrote:If we find a simple pattern to match many a few stimuli we feel comforted. That's why we feel F=ma and Fugue beautiful.
is the "many" just an accident?
i don't understand it anyway, but with the many it gets wierd!
what do you mean by comforted? whats the relation between fugue and comfort? most people hate fugues anyway. (unless you mean something else. i myself know only of music fugues.)
i think that because we have science to explain how the physical world, religion should explain the metaphysical world.
in other words, turn into philosophy.
most religions have philosophical aspects. some more and some less, but however i find that aspect the most interesting.
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest