2 ms·
Perhaps life has no explanation. Perhaps the fact that every person who tries to understand life reaches a different "answer" implies that life is life to be li
by unalone 17y ago
Perhaps life has no explanation. Perhaps the fact that every person who tries to understand life reaches a different "answer" implies that life is life to be life, and that any other meaning is personal in nature.
Evolution is describing something objective—it describes how something happens. You're looking for the subjective realm of philosophy.
- amichail 17y agoConsciousness is a real phenomenon. Although it is a subjective experience, the fact that it exists is entirely objective.
- gloob 17y agoThe fact that a single, first-person consciousness exists is entirely objective. To the best of my knowledge, there is no scientific way to go about verifying the consciousness of others; despite this (and despite the traditional "lack of evidence is evidence of lack" bent of Popperian science), most people work from a default assumption that other people have an existence somewhat similar to their own.
- maxwell 17y ago> The fact that a single, first-person consciousness exists is entirely objective. I wouldn't describe my consciousness as 'single or 'first-person. It often runs multiple threads, and by no means exclusively thinks of itself in the first-person. Additionally, it really doesn't identify with this body much more than, say, this house or computer. My consciousness isn't 'human any more than it's "ranch-style" or 'x86. Our language has already adopted inorganic technologies as extensions of ourselves (e.g. I say "I'll come over" which expands to "I'll come over in my car").
- tome 17y agoYou might be interested in Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?" which takes the opposite stance to you, i.e. that bat consciousness is inseparable from being a bat (and analogously, human). See e.g. http://www.consciousentities.com/bats.htm http://www.consciousentities.com/bats.htm
- DanielBMarkham 17y agoLet's not throw Popper under the bus just yet. In all fairness, if you don't have a definition, you can't have falsifiability. So Popper, imo, really has little to do with it. This is a problem of definition, not refutation.
- netsp 17y agoI object to your definition of philosophy. Evolution is first and foremost an philosophical concept. It is just biology to the extent that the evolution of life happens to beautifully demonstrate it.