Originally posted by Homuncul
1. Please remind me again how do you difine unknowable?
Unknowable is unknowable, what exactly eludes you with this?
Originally posted by Homuncul
2. Ability to understand. What do you think?
Acquisition of subjectively acknowledged lore most likely functioning as a tool for survival; a more sophisticated step up the evolutionary latter.
Originally posted by Homuncul
3. Morals. Limitation or adaptation?
A weapon for logic's conflict with primeval emotional instinct, so an adaption that can function as a limitation from appreciating our primal nature. In extension works as a shield for the weak against the strong.
Originally posted by Homuncul
4. Creativity. What's its purpose?
Its purpose is evolutionary but with a twist; going from adapting to one's surroundings to also adapting your surroundings to one self. With regards to the arts such as music, painting and sculpting I see it as a form of expression with the purpose of focusing and stimulating our emotions through a catalyst.
Originally posted by Homuncul
1. Please remind me again how do you difine unknowable?
Unknowable - a temporary condition that is the result of an inability to create, discover or accurately interpret data. The composition of the Moon was once unknowable, but now the speculation about several varieties of cheese has been put to rest as the condition has passed.
Originally posted by Homuncul
2. Ability to understand. What do you think?
Directly proportional to amount of comparative data and efficiency of methodology. The better the methods and the more data that exists, the better our understanding.
Originally posted by Homuncul
3. Morals. Limitation or adaptation?
Adaptation. Morals vary from society to society and fit the needs of that society. There are agricultural societies in which it is acceptable for a woman to marry more than one man, typically all brothers. This is so fields can be kept within one family from generation to generation.
Originally posted by Homuncul
4. Creativity. What's its purpose?
Creativity might not have purpose, but it certainly has been very influential in nearly every aspect of our societies, including science. I suspect our creative processes are directly responsable for the development of language and are related to the centers within the brain that deal with our abilities to form / find metaphors.
There are many people who associate colors with sound or, when they see a black & white number, they associate a particular integer with a particular color. They are typically artsy types and find use of metaphor (i.e. Shakespeare) is natural. But we all have this ability to some degree.
I mostly agree with what Skin says here
A weapon for logic's conflict with primeval emotional instinct, so an adaption that can function as a limitation from appreciating our primal nature. In extension works as a shield for the weak against the strong.
A weapon? Was it so from the beginning? A limitation for appreciating animal instincts? Morals are more like byproducts of difining of one self aware being among others. A higher form of altruism perhaps (as known with animals: I'll scratch your back, you'll scratch mine). It starts with primitive group hunting. Develops in some rituals: sepulture, matrimony etc. And finally reaches stagnant points as we have now (like: don't kill your own kind) , difining our conduct practically the same way among all humans.
I guess if aliens visited us we'd have to alter our morals to coexist.
Acquisition of subjectively acknowledged lore most likely functioning as a tool for survival; a more sophisticated step up the evolutionary latter.
That's it, nothing more? What about an impact on the whole universe we might give in just understanding such matters, or the way we're (life) structured through multiverse. "Dead" hydrogen gives less impact we do, still outnumbering us by the very infinity.
About creativity I liked both your points. I guess both are right.
Unknowable is unknowable, what exactly eludes you with this?
I was thinking of some explaination of how your concept is working to you and why is that again that you believe in causality and fate. And due to temporary condition which is result of inability to interpret data, or some kind of emotional barrier, you don't want to accept that sometime later you can change your point about it? And why every counter argument to me always ends with something unknowable? Is it your faith then, cauze it's not strenghtened by any logical and explanational argument either then obsevation. So unknowable is always only a belief (and I thought you were nihilist), and then why it makes more sense to you than subjective understanding that we can understand reality implicitly? Because my statement does not take in consideration uknowable truth that stops us from doing it? But neither does your statement in saying that we're limited in understanding, because it's just your guess or faith. Or you think that your experience or intuition has anything to do with justification of your guess. It doesn't, and it follows that unknowable is not as invincible as you may believe but suffers the same fundamental limitation (but not really a limitation, maybe only a limitation in your head) that we live in subjective reality.
What's unknowable as I see it? Talking about it is more like talking about Shrodinger's cat (i.e. anything uncertain). As soon as you want to observe it, it collapses. Let's rephrase it: as soon as you want to test (and so justify your view) by "kicking it" and recieving response, it collapses. It may be there but we'll never know it
The same goes with uncertainty. Your point is: every part (however big however small) of our existence has this small or big (size matters not... judge me by my size...hmmm :D) portion of uncertainty in it. An infinitesimal bit we can or can't measure contains it. And so uncertainty is an overwhelming principle of our existence. Am I right? But how does it fit with what's unknowable if it's only a guess? When we approximate a multiplyer of 2 periodical fractions? Is it uncertain? Yes, but is it unlknowable? No, cauze we can always raise a countable period ad finitum and count more accurately.
What about causality? What justifys your belief that vast complexity of causality gives birth to fundamental understanding called fate. Causality is an axiom, yes but does fate doesn't makes it for a bit more certain than free will? Again it all breaks before the unknowable, which is only your guess.
In the end again and again why can't you change your belief if it just your subjective preference not justifyed by anything?
Originally posted by Homuncul
A weapon? Was it so from the beginning? A limitation for appreciating animal instincts? Morals are more like byproducts of difining of one self aware being among others. A higher form of altruism perhaps (as known with animals: I'll scratch your back, you'll scratch mine). It starts with primitive group hunting. Develops in some rituals: sepulture, matrimony etc. And finally reaches stagnant points as we have now (like: don't kill your own kind) , difining our conduct practically the same way among all humans.
I guess if aliens visited us we'd have to alter our morals to coexist.
Ah, but see, I don't believe in altruism as explained in my original post. Altruism is another romantic notion of man.
Originally posted by Homuncul
That's it, nothing more? What about an impact on the whole universe we might give in just understanding such matters, or the way we're (life) structured through multiverse. "Dead" hydrogen gives less impact we do, still outnumbering us by the very infinity.
And what about my definition says we cannot have an impact on existence? It may exactly be that we need to understand our universe to evolve further from some point.
For your last big part concerning the unknowable, I'm afraid your at times messy english makes it a bit difficult to understand all you're trying to get across, but I think I have the essence of it. I've explained it before but will try again. The unknowable I speak of is not pieces of knowledge out there we have yet to get a hold of. It's the simple concept or idea, that however much we find out, if we explore and explain this universe down to its basest parts, we can never know there not to be more. There might not be but we can never know. The unknowable is not a belief to me, just an observation, and not a guess. And again you imply that observing the unknowable somehow should prevent me from exploring the universe...Why would it?
Originally posted by Homuncul
....your statement in saying that we're limited in understanding
Where do I say we're limited in understanding?
Yet again you're putting words in my mouth about uncertainty. I only apply it to the big picture, not every little part.
Causality is an axiom for me now, but one that might be proven given sufficient insight. Your dedicated adherence to the scientific method seems to prevent you from accepting the mere possibility of its truth simply because it isn't (as of yet) scientifically provable...Though I think it is. I have yet to see any proof against causality.
Originally posted by Homuncul
In the end again and again why can't you change your belief if it just your subjective preference not justifyed by anything?
Because there is nothing to change my belief. And that last part made me almost laugh if it wasn't so frustratingly sad; why can't you change your belief if it's just your subjective preference not justified by anything?
Oh, and you asked why my counterarguments always end up with the unknowable...Well, I'll do this slowly and you read my lips carefully: Because...that...is...the...whole...point!....Got it now?
Lastly, I wonder how many times I must repeat the things I say before you read and understand them right. I will ask you yet again not to put words in my mouth based on your misinterpretations.
Causality is an axiom for me now, but one that might be proven given sufficient insight.
This is your religion then. Why then you bash christians I wonder.
Your dedicated adherence to the scientific method seems to prevent you from accepting the mere possibility of its truth simply because it isn't (as of yet) scientifically provable...Though I think it is
Show me proof then, if it is not again only your guess, intuition or faith.
P.S. There are things in your post apart from agression that encourage me. Something has changed, that's a good sign.
And I'm sorry of my messy english, just I sometimes start thinking of different thing in the middle of another.
I mostly repeat myself for myself not to lose details, and for that I too apologize
Originally posted by Homuncul
This is your religion then. Why then you bash christians I wonder.
I have no religion, but admit annihilation being the closest thing to it for me. I bash Christians because they promote the sustaining of life and thereby pain - I do not.
Originally posted by Homuncul
Show me proof then, if it is not again only your guess, intuition or faith.
Only said I think (<-keyword) it's scientifically provable, not that I knew of any proof.
Originally posted by Homuncul
Something has changed, that's a good sign.
Nothing about my beliefs have changed, but since you think otherwise, tell me what.
Only said I think (<-keyword) it's scientifically provable, not that I knew of any proof.
I can think of many things, both proved and not, but I would never give them more consideration then they deserve in forming my world view. Being only beliefs what's their strength for you? How do they comfort you?
So, given that you truly can't know anything beyond the fact that something exists, why even bother trying to find meaning and truth?
and I say I simply relate what I observe. "...to think what I want." That's funny
Just because I don't want to appear to not contemplate your view points does not dictate that I should agree with them.
Originally posted by Homuncul
I can think of many things, both proved and not, but I would never give them more consideration then they deserve in forming my world view. Being only beliefs what's their strength for you? How do they comfort you?
Their strength to me would be contentment. As for their comfort, there is none beyond contentment. Beliefs as they may be in your eyes forget not that your subjective views hold no greater value to me.
And what is the point of your finishing 3-part quote?
And what is the point of your finishing 3-part quote?
These things seems to have changed. But again it's only relative. You'd say it's only my illusion or my faith :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Homuncul
These things seems to have changed. But again it's only relative. You'd say it's only my illusion or my faith :rolleyes:
Ok, if you don't care to explain more elaborately I'll address them one at a time.
So, given that you truly can't know anything beyond the fact that something exists, why even bother trying to find meaning and truth?
That is answered right after in the original post; because everything is relative, or rather subjective. Nothing has changed there.
and I say I simply relate what I observe. "...to think what I want." That's funny
I do still relate what I observe. The "to think what I want" comment was a referral to the free will argument - a mere amusing observation of one of many dogmatic clichйs. Nothing has changed there either.
Just because I don't want to appear to not contemplate your view points does not dictate that I should agree with them.
Nothing has changed there either.