4 ms·

Why wouldn't it? It has been around for thousands of years, and we still have no objective answer to certain fundamental questions about why we exist, how consc

Why wouldn't it? It has been around for thousands of years, and we still have no objective answer to certain fundamental questions about why we exist, how consciousness came about, and what happens after we die.

senthil_rajasek 18y ago
either that or we are in denial...
windsurfer 18y ago
We do have objective answers. As for "why we exist", it's "It doesn't matter" and as for conciousness its "We don't know yet, we're looking into it" and for "what happens after we die" it's "Nothing, we think, but we don't really have enough evidence either way"
- alyx 18y ago
  Just because those "objective" answers are satisfactory for you does not imply that they are for everybody. Unless of course you consider yourself to be average. And thus expect your opinions and thoughts to be similar to those of the masses. I never understand people's problem with the core ideas of religion. So long as nobody tries to convert me, I'm really happy to accept other people's beliefs.
  - berntb 18y ago
    >>Just because those "objective" answers are satisfactory for you does not imply that they are for everybody. ... and we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true? I can agree so far that it lacks respect to laugh outright at other people, even when they do hilariously stupid things.
    - sho 18y ago
      "I can agree so far that it lacks respect to laugh outright at other people, even when they do hilariously stupid things." Mere laughter is disrespectful and immature, but pointing out the stupidity of their actions and the absurdity of their core beliefs is right and necessary. I would strongly criticise parents who refuse to vaccinate their children based upon unproven New Age beliefs. How is religion any different?
      - berntb 18y ago
        I don't disagree. I thought my irony was obvious.
    - alyx 18y ago
      Without getting too philosophical ... I personally believe that I am in no position to ultimately judge what someone else believes. For me to label what someone believes as "stupid", would be quite odd as that would imply that I am the ultimate authority on the subject. I can disagree but ultimately my opinion and beliefs are of no more accuracy than that of the fellow. You see?
      - berntb 18y ago
        I seem to see that you argue that all opinions are equal and proof and facts doesn't matter. (My determination to not laugh is sorely, sorely tested...)
      - gnaritas 18y ago
        > I personally believe that I am in no position to ultimately judge what someone else believes. Really? If you met someone who walked around insisting that the earth was flat, despite all evidence to the contrary, you wouldn't openly question that belief? > I can disagree but ultimately my opinion and beliefs are of no more accuracy than that of the fellow. There exists objective facts, and when those facts are on your side, then your opinions and beliefs are more accurate than the other fellows. This idea that all our beliefs are equally valid is just absurd. Some peoples beliefs really are just stupid.
    - anamax 18y ago
      > and we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true? Yes. Why? Because everyone has such beliefs so harshing on folks who have them is like harshing on people because they have heads. What? You think that you don't have such beliefs? Back when I was into being a serious jerk, I loved finding folks who thought like that because it didn't take much to find their "religion" and then I got to go to town.
      - berntb 18y ago
        Oh please, talk about mixing apples and moons. (I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post.) There might be some things I hold for true on an emotional level, like that the sun will rise tomorrow, even if behind clouds. (see Hume and induction proofs, for instance). The difference is that there are very few, if any, things I really connect to my own self image in a hard way. This means that I can list facts and possible events that will change my opinion. That is, my opinions are testable.
        anamax 18y ago
        > (I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post.) > The difference is that there are very few, if any, things I really connect to my own self image in a hard way. > This means that I can list facts and possible events that will change my opinion. That is, my opinions are testable. Like I said, I've played this game many times before. It starts with statements like the above. And, if it goes through "but those are the only ones", I've always been able to come up with another. I'm not a mind-reader, so I don't know what your "religions" are, but I'd start looking around the "difference" claim.
        berntb 18y ago
        I don't know you so I'm not going to call you a liar, but I've discussed religion quite a bit ... and your claim is new to me. I am certain lots of my opinions are wrong, I have changed them lots of times and I'll change again. What you claim is that there are opinions I have which I can't handle changing. I say "bullshit". Hell, vi might be more usable than emacs. Microsoft and other criminal monopolists might not be bad for the world. (I seriously doubt both claims, but they might be true.) If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples, where people don't just shrug and say "my opinion here is a working hypothesis, if I had the energy + time + money I'd test it with X, Y and Z ... and if those tests failed, I'd change opinion". (Note that, as I wrote, I've already discounted ideologies; same garbage as religion for believers. I've also read enough science to believe in the skeptic viewpoint.)
- Luc 18y ago
  What more evidence do you need for what happens after we die? The brain's cells, awesome in their cooperation during our life, start failing and dying off, and that's the end of it. Case closed.
  - banned_man 18y ago
    How do you know that consciousness remains bound to the brain, which has lost all function? For that matter, there's no scientific reason to believe that my consciousness shall remain bound to my brain 5 minutes from now. My body and brain could continue on living, with my consciousness going elsewhere, or ceasing to exist.
    - gnaritas 18y ago
      If you think that, then I suggest you're not up to date on the science. Read some Steven Pinker, it's pretty well established that the brain is the seat of consciousness. There may still be arguments over what consciousness is or how it's formed, but there's little debate that it comes from the brain and exists only until that brain stops functioning.
      - banned_man 18y ago
        It's well-established that, to the extent that consciousness is bound to the body, the central nervous system is the strongest and possibly sole contributor. It's also obvious that changes to the brain can induce massive alterations of consciousness and cognitive function. Not even the most religious people would argue that, while we're bound to a human body, the physical state of the brain can dominate our experience. This is not quite the same thing as saying that consciousness comes from the brain. It's equally plausible that "the world" emerges from mind.
        gnaritas 18y ago
        > It's equally plausible that "the world" emerges from mind. Uh... no, it isn't.
- banned_man 18y ago
  I don't think we'll ever find a scientific explanation for consciousness, and here's why. Science assumes two physically identical objects to be identical: a kilogram of iron is a kilogram of iron. This reduction is useful and necessary; we wouldn't have organic chemistry if we allowed philosophical disputes about the "personality" of individual carbon atoms, which (even were such a notion to exist at all) is irrelevant to the questions organic chemistry exists to answer. With consciousness, however, it doesn't make sense. If a physically identical clone of you were created, there would be no scientific distinction between you and the clone, but the difference would still matter to your consciousness. For that matter, we can't answer scientifically why your consciousness is bound to you and not the clone, or to you and not some other person or animal. This discrepancy isn't a sliding error that can be reduced with better tools of observation and knowledge. It's a fundamental gap. Ergo, I think it's safe to say that, as science is defined today, there will never be a scientific explanation for the binding of mind to matter.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    Hogwash. > If a physically identical clone of you were created, there would be no scientific distinction between you and the clone More hogwash. The moment such a cloning happens, you'd become two distinct individuals and would immediately diverge into having separate experiences. Science would not at all consider you the same thing. > For that matter, we can't answer scientifically why your consciousness is bound to you and not the clone, or to you and not some other person or animal. C'mon, are you for real with this. Science would say there are no two distinct and separate consciousnesses. And we very well know consciousness is bound to your brain. > I think it's safe to say that, as science is defined today, there will never be a scientific explanation for the binding of mind to matter. I think it's safer to say you don't really understand science if you actually believe that.
    - banned_man 18y ago
      More hogwash. The moment such a cloning happens, you'd become two distinct individuals and would immediately diverge into having separate experiences. Science would not at all consider you the same thing. I'm talking about one time slice: the moment at which the cloning took place. You can argue that a zero-width time slice doesn't really exist, but we're in "meta-science" (which is philosophy and not science) here. For that matter, there's no such thing as a pure kilogram of iron. Two seemingly "identical" objects are almost certainly not identical at the atomic level. My point is that most science operates under the metascientific assumption that two physically identical objects are identical, and while this may be philosophically wrong regarding matters of consciousness, it's a damn good/useful assumption to make when you want to reason about, say, chemical reactions. Science would say there are no two distinct and separate consciousnesses. No it wouldn't. That's scientism, which is inherently speculative. Science says nothing about consciousness. Cognition is a different animal; that can be observed. And we very well know consciousness is bound to your brain. More scientism.

senthil_rajasek 18y ago

either that or we are in denial...

windsurfer 18y ago

We do have objective answers. As for "why we exist", it's "It doesn't matter" and as for conciousness its "We don't know yet, we're looking into it" and for "what happens after we die" it's "Nothing, we think, but we don't really have enough evidence either way"

alyx 18y ago
Just because those "objective" answers are satisfactory for you does not imply that they are for everybody. Unless of course you consider yourself to be average. And thus expect your opinions and thoughts to be similar to those of the masses. I never understand people's problem with the core ideas of religion. So long as nobody tries to convert me, I'm really happy to accept other people's beliefs.
- berntb 18y ago
  >>Just because those "objective" answers are satisfactory for you does not imply that they are for everybody. ... and we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true? I can agree so far that it lacks respect to laugh outright at other people, even when they do hilariously stupid things.
  - sho 18y ago
    "I can agree so far that it lacks respect to laugh outright at other people, even when they do hilariously stupid things." Mere laughter is disrespectful and immature, but pointing out the stupidity of their actions and the absurdity of their core beliefs is right and necessary. I would strongly criticise parents who refuse to vaccinate their children based upon unproven New Age beliefs. How is religion any different?
    - berntb 18y ago
      I don't disagree. I thought my irony was obvious.
  - alyx 18y ago
    Without getting too philosophical ... I personally believe that I am in no position to ultimately judge what someone else believes. For me to label what someone believes as "stupid", would be quite odd as that would imply that I am the ultimate authority on the subject. I can disagree but ultimately my opinion and beliefs are of no more accuracy than that of the fellow. You see?
    - berntb 18y ago
      I seem to see that you argue that all opinions are equal and proof and facts doesn't matter. (My determination to not laugh is sorely, sorely tested...)
    - gnaritas 18y ago
      > I personally believe that I am in no position to ultimately judge what someone else believes. Really? If you met someone who walked around insisting that the earth was flat, despite all evidence to the contrary, you wouldn't openly question that belief? > I can disagree but ultimately my opinion and beliefs are of no more accuracy than that of the fellow. There exists objective facts, and when those facts are on your side, then your opinions and beliefs are more accurate than the other fellows. This idea that all our beliefs are equally valid is just absurd. Some peoples beliefs really are just stupid.
  - anamax 18y ago
    > and we should respect that people believe X because they feel good by believing X, even without serious reasons to think X is true? Yes. Why? Because everyone has such beliefs so harshing on folks who have them is like harshing on people because they have heads. What? You think that you don't have such beliefs? Back when I was into being a serious jerk, I loved finding folks who thought like that because it didn't take much to find their "religion" and then I got to go to town.
    - berntb 18y ago
      Oh please, talk about mixing apples and moons. (I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post.) There might be some things I hold for true on an emotional level, like that the sun will rise tomorrow, even if behind clouds. (see Hume and induction proofs, for instance). The difference is that there are very few, if any, things I really connect to my own self image in a hard way. This means that I can list facts and possible events that will change my opinion. That is, my opinions are testable.
      - anamax 18y ago
        > (I assume you thought I follow some other stupid ideology when you wrote that post.) > The difference is that there are very few, if any, things I really connect to my own self image in a hard way. > This means that I can list facts and possible events that will change my opinion. That is, my opinions are testable. Like I said, I've played this game many times before. It starts with statements like the above. And, if it goes through "but those are the only ones", I've always been able to come up with another. I'm not a mind-reader, so I don't know what your "religions" are, but I'd start looking around the "difference" claim.
        berntb 18y ago
        I don't know you so I'm not going to call you a liar, but I've discussed religion quite a bit ... and your claim is new to me. I am certain lots of my opinions are wrong, I have changed them lots of times and I'll change again. What you claim is that there are opinions I have which I can't handle changing. I say "bullshit". Hell, vi might be more usable than emacs. Microsoft and other criminal monopolists might not be bad for the world. (I seriously doubt both claims, but they might be true.) If you want credibility here, you need to give some examples, where people don't just shrug and say "my opinion here is a working hypothesis, if I had the energy + time + money I'd test it with X, Y and Z ... and if those tests failed, I'd change opinion". (Note that, as I wrote, I've already discounted ideologies; same garbage as religion for believers. I've also read enough science to believe in the skeptic viewpoint.)
Luc 18y ago
What more evidence do you need for what happens after we die? The brain's cells, awesome in their cooperation during our life, start failing and dying off, and that's the end of it. Case closed.
- banned_man 18y ago
  How do you know that consciousness remains bound to the brain, which has lost all function? For that matter, there's no scientific reason to believe that my consciousness shall remain bound to my brain 5 minutes from now. My body and brain could continue on living, with my consciousness going elsewhere, or ceasing to exist.
  - gnaritas 18y ago
    If you think that, then I suggest you're not up to date on the science. Read some Steven Pinker, it's pretty well established that the brain is the seat of consciousness. There may still be arguments over what consciousness is or how it's formed, but there's little debate that it comes from the brain and exists only until that brain stops functioning.
    - banned_man 18y ago
      It's well-established that, to the extent that consciousness is bound to the body, the central nervous system is the strongest and possibly sole contributor. It's also obvious that changes to the brain can induce massive alterations of consciousness and cognitive function. Not even the most religious people would argue that, while we're bound to a human body, the physical state of the brain can dominate our experience. This is not quite the same thing as saying that consciousness comes from the brain. It's equally plausible that "the world" emerges from mind.
      - gnaritas 18y ago
        > It's equally plausible that "the world" emerges from mind. Uh... no, it isn't.
banned_man 18y ago
I don't think we'll ever find a scientific explanation for consciousness, and here's why. Science assumes two physically identical objects to be identical: a kilogram of iron is a kilogram of iron. This reduction is useful and necessary; we wouldn't have organic chemistry if we allowed philosophical disputes about the "personality" of individual carbon atoms, which (even were such a notion to exist at all) is irrelevant to the questions organic chemistry exists to answer. With consciousness, however, it doesn't make sense. If a physically identical clone of you were created, there would be no scientific distinction between you and the clone, but the difference would still matter to your consciousness. For that matter, we can't answer scientifically why your consciousness is bound to you and not the clone, or to you and not some other person or animal. This discrepancy isn't a sliding error that can be reduced with better tools of observation and knowledge. It's a fundamental gap. Ergo, I think it's safe to say that, as science is defined today, there will never be a scientific explanation for the binding of mind to matter.
- gnaritas 18y ago
  Hogwash. > If a physically identical clone of you were created, there would be no scientific distinction between you and the clone More hogwash. The moment such a cloning happens, you'd become two distinct individuals and would immediately diverge into having separate experiences. Science would not at all consider you the same thing. > For that matter, we can't answer scientifically why your consciousness is bound to you and not the clone, or to you and not some other person or animal. C'mon, are you for real with this. Science would say there are no two distinct and separate consciousnesses. And we very well know consciousness is bound to your brain. > I think it's safe to say that, as science is defined today, there will never be a scientific explanation for the binding of mind to matter. I think it's safer to say you don't really understand science if you actually believe that.
  - banned_man 18y ago
    More hogwash. The moment such a cloning happens, you'd become two distinct individuals and would immediately diverge into having separate experiences. Science would not at all consider you the same thing. I'm talking about one time slice: the moment at which the cloning took place. You can argue that a zero-width time slice doesn't really exist, but we're in "meta-science" (which is philosophy and not science) here. For that matter, there's no such thing as a pure kilogram of iron. Two seemingly "identical" objects are almost certainly not identical at the atomic level. My point is that most science operates under the metascientific assumption that two physically identical objects are identical, and while this may be philosophically wrong regarding matters of consciousness, it's a damn good/useful assumption to make when you want to reason about, say, chemical reactions. Science would say there are no two distinct and separate consciousnesses. No it wouldn't. That's scientism, which is inherently speculative. Science says nothing about consciousness. Cognition is a different animal; that can be observed. And we very well know consciousness is bound to your brain. More scientism.