If each is a fractured part of absolute mind that would be reason to be conscious.It's so incredibly strange. There's no good reason to be conscious. We could do all the same things as sophisticated robots or zombies, but we don't.
Is philosophy for real, or is it just an academic amusement?
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is philosophy for real, or is it just an academic amusement?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is philosophy for real, or is it just an academic amusement?
"Who cares, wins"
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Is philosophy for real, or is it just an academic amusement?
Ah, that makes things far less weird
Maybe the cosmic web, or portions of it, act like a mind? Maybe ours was the, well, trillionth big bang and not the first? Who know what may have evolved in those iterations? Maybe something that survives the death of its star, chaos in its local group, the death of its galaxy and the heat death of its universe? Maybe some super being survives and permeates new universes?
Or maybe a freakish inflation of the universe and its aftermath (ie. time up until now) is all there is? Maybe consciousness is just an illusion of life, which is just an accident of chemistry? Maybe the only consciousness in the whole universe is on Earth, a strange cosmic fluke never to be repeated? Maybe the void is all that is real?
Both are possible. Is there a point to believing one schema or another? Given the extent of unknowns, the only valid use for beliefs is to chunk reality into something that one finds manageable. A salve for the confusing and aggressive nature of reality. "Invalid" uses of belief are, using them for social acceptance and to push political agendas (including religious and atheistic agendas).
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is philosophy for real, or is it just an academic amusement?
a "super being" that "survives"; and "a strange cosmic fluke never to be repeated? Maybe the void is all that is real?" pertain to a physicalist(materialist) theory of existence. The idealist(immaterialist) theory of existence is more credible, besides allowing for panpsychism as absolute mind. Entropy will result in nothingness only if materialism is the case. Absolute mind transcends entropy. We know from immediate experience and science that relativity is happening. It would be impossible to know about relativity unless we could contrast it with changelessness. (I am not trying to make a case for changelessness based upon maths and classical logic!).Sy Borg wrote: ↑July 13th, 2021, 7:40 pmAh, that makes things far less weird
Maybe the cosmic web, or portions of it, act like a mind? Maybe ours was the, well, trillionth big bang and not the first? Who know what may have evolved in those iterations? Maybe something that survives the death of its star, chaos in its local group, the death of its galaxy and the heat death of its universe? Maybe some super being survives and permeates new universes?
Or maybe a freakish inflation of the universe and its aftermath (ie. time up until now) is all there is? Maybe consciousness is just an illusion of life, which is just an accident of chemistry? Maybe the only consciousness in the whole universe is on Earth, a strange cosmic fluke never to be repeated? Maybe the void is all that is real?
Both are possible. Is there a point to believing one schema or another? Given the extent of unknowns, the only valid use for beliefs is to chunk reality into something that one finds manageable. A salve for the confusing and aggressive nature of reality. "Invalid" uses of belief are, using them for social acceptance and to push political agendas (including religious and atheistic agendas).
Changelessness describes absolute mind. Sounds like God, but God is not the same as absolute mind. A strong determinist can understand the world as ordered nature where all that happens necessarily happens.
- Tom Butler
- Posts: 107
- Joined: February 23rd, 2017, 10:24 pm
Re: Is philosophy for real, or is it just an academic amusement?
Z n+1 = Zn2 + C
where Z0 = C
Navigation in Mandelbrot Space is accomplished by changing the initial assumption "C". The Apple man is considered a fractal. One encounters an infinite number of Apple man fractals when "Telescoping" into infinitely small Mandelbrot Space.
We know that Psi Space is nonlocal, meaning that it appears that it has no distance. (Some argue it also has no time, but I am not comfortable with that part.) If nonlocality is taken literally, and if Psi space permeates physical space, then in physical terms Psi Space is a singularity. That would seem to make physical space a singularity from the perspective of Psi Space.
This agrees with the way we mentally visualize things. Our mental visualization space seems to have characteristics that is more like Mandelbrot Space than physical space. We assign distance as a characteristic of our metal imagining.
In metaphysical terms, if life fields are modeled as fractals, the all of life would be in Psi space in a similar sense that Appleman fractals are in Mandelbrot Space.
What are the implications of this model?
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Is philosophy for real, or is it just an academic amusement?
I was reading this thread and thought it worth bringing it back to life because it is probably a lot better than my attempt to write a thread on the basics of philosophy. I think that your question is a really good one because philosophy can be too academic or too superficial from my point of view. There is probably no real right or wrong because each person comes to it uniquely.
One aspect may be the difference of writing philosophy to be read by others and philosophy to be about finding ideas to guide living. Having been on sites, I do tend to make judgements about my own philosophy ability on the basis of ability to perform on site. It is leading me to wonder to what extent is writing philosophy different from the quest itself. In particular, I am reading books on Buddhism and spirituality which are about my personal philosophy searching. I am not sure whether I would wish to write about these ideas here because I would probably receive mostly derogatory comments. It may be detrimental to my own personal philosophy searching.
So, this makes me think how philosophy can often be about having ideas validated or rubbished by others. This probably applies to academic philosophy to some extent although the people there have some credibility and status. In some ways, academic philosophy and its elitism may put many off philosophy in the first place which is a shame. It is an area central to life and can be lively without being shallow. Writing on philosophy sites can be a useful task for expressing ideas and sharing them. In many ways, I do feel it has helped me clarify some thoughts. However, it can be so easy just to write and to write ideas which are not worth reading. So, at the moment, even though I love writing threads and posts, I do wonder if I should have hold back and remain silent unless I have something truly worth saying, as Wittgenstein advised. I would love to be able to write philosophy worthy of being read, but, even then, that is a goal of the ego to some extent. It may be that philosophy is an art as well to be developed.
But, in the meantime, I do wonder if it is more important to read and think alone and keep philosophy as being a private quest because by writing it the task becomes that of it being scrutinised. But, it is hard to know because at least by writing ideas one is able to get some feedback to give scope for improvement. Also, if it is a case of holding back until one has something really important to say that may never happen. So, it is all about balance and may be about what to share and what to hold on to as personal and private philosophy for real as being the very stuff of human searching for meaning.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Is philosophy for real, or is it just an academic amusement?
*** by "reasoning" I mean comparing ideas. Individual. Cats. Rational and reflective.
*** by "cooperating" I mean following the conventions. Society. Dogs. Irrational and reactive.
Unless philosophers try very hard to be objective much philolophising is rationalising one's own biases. Myth is psychologically more powerful than reason.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Is philosophy for real, or is it just an academic amusement?
You are probably right that philosophy online and professionally is very individualistic. I had never thought of philosophy as being competitive until about a year ago when I realised how competitive it was. Then, I realised I was becoming competitive too and I started to think of being down to testosterone levels. But, I wonder if it is more to do with a culture of individualism.
I also wonder if the philosophers down through the ages were competitive. Certainly, within academic institutions there is a lot of competition because I remember tutors always listing their publications and achievements. Within psychoanalysis there was conflict and rivalry between Jung and Freud. But, I wonder was Schopenhauer trying to prove himself better than Kant by his critique of Kant's ideas. Or, was it to do with the deeper questing of ideas.
To develop philosophy for its own right may be the challenge and it may be hard to achieve in an individualist culture where comparisons are made. Thinking about it, going right back to primary school, I can remember wanting my pictures to be put on the wall. Most people compete for marks and grades at school. I did care in some subjects but not all. I was almost always the last person chosen for team sports. It is likely that all these experiences come into play when people approach philosophy as group activities and it is likely that there is often more emphasis on performance than truth in many ways. That sort of defeats the purpose of philosophy and the challenge may be to rise above that.
Perhaps, the best option is to spend some time thinking and reflecting alone as well as some engagement, so that philosophy doesn't become hollow rhetoric and a war of the egos.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023