EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c51g9 wrote
Reply to comment by jank_ram in Cosmic nihilism, existential joy | Human consciousness, and our need for meaning in a meaningless world, is the source of both tragic pessimism and the intense joy we take in life. by IAI_Admin
Then what was that nonsense?
jank_ram t1_j6c6uyx wrote
How is it nonsense? It's a hypothesis, one which I find very convincing, I would actually really appreciate it if you can tell me how it doesn't hold, If I could know that, I would be enlightened compared to now!
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c959x wrote
Do you exist, yes or no?
jank_ram t1_j6e03ac wrote
Depends on what you mean by me. does a perceiver exist? Seems undoubtable. Does coherence exist (my memory, a consistent world around me, my body itself)? I say In a meaningful world, necessarily, yes. In an unmeaningful world, I would say probably not, you know, that may very well be what requires "faith" on part of the perceiver, faith that there is meaning, which includes coherency, which is a precondition for math and what it represents, including I would say patterns
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6gj5lx wrote
>Depends on what you mean by me.
No. The fact that you'd be trying to quantify it like that proves it is yes. If you did not exist it would be simply be "No, in no way, shape or form do I exist."
>does a perceiver exist? Seems undoubtable.
The answer is yes, you do exist. You're conscious (to be perceiving) as part of you existing, not the other way around (hence me calling it nonsense).
>Does coherence exist (my memory, a consistent world around me, my body itself)?
I did not ask about those things and that you think I might proves you haven't understood what I've been trying to explain.
EDIT: To clarify, I have consistently held that the self is "the doubter". Suggesting that I am talking about memory, about things like molecular activity and gravity or about the physical body is arguing in bad faith.
>I say In a meaningful world, necessarily, yes.
"Necessity" is a myth. It is a fictional relation, like you saying another person is your "property" i.e. that you "own" them. It has no reality,
>In an unmeaningful world, I would say probably not,
There is no such thing as an unmeaningful world. It cannot come into existence.
>you know, that may very well be what requires "faith" on part of the perceiver, faith that there is meaning,
No, that goes against what I've been saying: I know meaning exists becaue it's one of the seven things that (to simplify) without I would not exist in the slightest.
>which includes coherency, which is a precondition for math and what it represents, including I would say patterns
So you are trolling me. You either have no interest in understanding my conclusions or you do understand and pretend otherwise. Note I say understand my conclusions, not agree with them or accept them as infallible or take it on faith that I'm smarter than you since I'm sure a troll would start acting as if I was.
EDIT: To clarify, that I call something nonsense does not mean I am saying you are to agree without discussion.
jank_ram t1_j6gtb3j wrote
No, no trust me I am trying to understand. I have been thinking about this discussion for a lot of today actually.
You seen to think consciousness spawns from existence, if so what makes it not the other way around?
Also implying "necessarily" is a myth? As In we established there is actual ground reality? Isn't this what this is about? What ISN'T a myth? Other than the consciousness, which, I will grant, for any purpose of discussion can be called a "doubter", by definition what does the doubter base it's Doubs upon? That is meaning, meaning is the base for doubting, at least that how I understand it, you might have a different definition I would like to understand it.
EducatorBig6648 t1_j6gysi0 wrote
>You seen to think consciousness spawns from existence, if so what makes it not the other way around?
Are you conscious i.e. perceiving? Yes. If you did not exist you would not be doing anything e.g. perceiving i.e. being conscious. If you were a non-conscious thing, e.g. a rock, you would still exist. You cannot be a conscious rock that doesn't exist or a conscious person that doesn't exist because consciousness spawns from existence and not the other way around.
>Also implying "necessarily" is a myth?
I did not imply, I stated. "Necessity" is a myth we made up. It is a fictional relation. If you chain me up and tie me to the Titanic on the ocean floor, I can want air in order to breathe air and I can want air in order to avoid becoming a drowned corpse. I cannot "need" air in order to breathe air and I cannot "need" air in order to avoid becoming a drowned corpse anymore than a drowned corpse can "need" air in order to breathe air, "need" air in order to avoid becoming a living person or "need" air in order to become a magical unicorn with cybernetic wings that can time travel by absorbing yellow solar radiation or "need" air in order to avoid becoming a magical unicorn with cybernetic wings that can time travel by absorbing yellow solar radiation.
"Necessity" affects nothing except via the imagination, it never exists outside our imagination. It's just ego that the universe revolves around us so when we're chained to the Titanic we can do more than just want to survive, we can SOMEHOW "need" to survive. Reality is we never "need". We are all like a 120 year old man on his death bed riddled with cancer and we are all like an outwardly healthy-looking child diagnosed with terminal cancer.
>What ISN'T a myth?
At least seven things that I know of, six of them I can recall. I would remember the seventh but I have memory issues.
>Other than the consciousness, which, I will grant, for any purpose of discussion can be called a "doubter", by definition what does the doubter base it's Doubs upon?
Everything. You yourself gave four examples; coherence, your memory, the consistent world around me and your body itself. If you're trying to ask how doubting works, I've already covered that: That's us looking at patterns and consequences and meaning. That's consciousness perceiving. That's you going "What does this mean? What does this entail? What are the consequences here? What does studying the patterns reveal?"
>That is meaning, meaning is the base for doubting, at least that how I understand it, you might have a different definition I would like to understand it.
No, (in that regard at least) not a different definition. But, as I go into above, there is more to it than simply stating "meaning is the base for doubting". Also, you're contradicting your earlier thinking about "an unmeaningful world" since you've essentially just agreed to part of what I've been trying to explain: Doubting cannot be doubted hence meaning cannot be doubted.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments