Philosophy time!
- Thread starter Fniff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And if you make four more cycles of recursive dreaming, you wake up in a world where the most popular sexual fetish is buttered shark fins.Nieroshai said:
Another question if anyone feels like answering: How can anyone be sure that the same blue I see isn't an entirely different color to you or someone else? After all, proof would require the use of that color, and if they saw it differently, they'd just agree.
Didn't Immanuel Kant write an entire book on thesis on this?
OT: This is one of those terribly clever questions, that exist because the true method of answering the question lies outside the bounds of the question and there isn't a single assertion that can be made that will ensure that someone cannot argue that we are in fact in a dream state. Even new information can be explained away by a memory mechanism within the dream. The only correct answer to this question is: "Does it matter?"
OT: This is one of those terribly clever questions, that exist because the true method of answering the question lies outside the bounds of the question and there isn't a single assertion that can be made that will ensure that someone cannot argue that we are in fact in a dream state. Even new information can be explained away by a memory mechanism within the dream. The only correct answer to this question is: "Does it matter?"
Isn't that a scientific question as it deals with the nature of reality?Fniff said:
Here's a question that has been on my mind. Metaphysics is the philosophy concerning the fundamental nature of reality. This is a flawed idea because, as I pointed out above, that is a question for science and not philsophy. But, science can only get started on ideas that cannot be justified by science (we cannot prove, for example, F=MA has remained true in every single instance) perhaps metaphysics could be the philosophy of these things.
I just poked myself with a pen. I know that I feel pain because I just did!Fniff said:
There is really nothing more to it than that.
It could be just a dream. But if we live our lives based on that assumption, well, we might end up wasting them. I'll live my life based on the belief that what I am experiencing is real (or at least the echo of reality, distorted by my fallible senses). Some of the input I get might be wrong, but I'd say the general gist of reality is true. If that makes any sense.
I guess what I'm saying is "don't trust your senses completely, but do rely on them".
I guess what I'm saying is "don't trust your senses completely, but do rely on them".
Lets hear it for starting a philosophy thread with an incredibly broad question and absolutely no context or direction in a community so ADHD infused you can practically hear the ritalin running through their veins.
I predict this thread will either become a flame war or meander into nothing.
I predict this thread will either become a flame war or meander into nothing.
No, it's not. There is reality beyond our minds. And if you claim to need it proven to you, you're a harmful subversive who should be locked away from normal people.Fniff said:
I solved this problem a long time ago: If this is the only reality we can perceive then what does it matter if it is an illusion/dream/some other metaphysics thing.Fniff said:
My philosophy teacher got really upset when I said that one.
There is a whole area of psychology based around this stuff and given my cursory knowledge of the area I shan't make to many comments, however you perceive the world using the same apparatus as everyone else and given that different parts of the eye perceive different colour ranges it seems reasonable to say that everyones brain is getting the same input though in some cases the brain can confuse it. This happens in red-green colour blindness which is probably a good proof that we do perceive colour in the same way because people notice when someone doesn't.Fauxity said:
I think it is far more likely we are in a simulation I think someone far cleverer than me has actually stated that if we accept we will one day have the technology to create a full simulation of the universe, then we can also accept that we would use it. From this point we can assume that we could be within a chain of any number of simulations so it would be mathematically improbable that we are the top or start of the chain i.e not a simulation. After a quick search I think its Nick Bostrum who came up with this.
If we are in the dream I like the idea that one could in theory change his own reality if they figured out how.
If we are in the dream I like the idea that one could in theory change his own reality if they figured out how.
Is it possible what we do can be percieved with an entirely different meaning by other people to the extent where we come off as completely different people to who we are?
I don't really think color blindness qualifies as proof that we all perceive color the same way; there are specific tests that are designed to show color blindness in individuals, but that's a genetic abnormality, and all it really proves is that some people don't see colors the way they should. You could also say that those tests wouldn't work the same for all people if some people saw colors differently, but I'm of the opinion that if they did see colors differently, it's also not much of a stretch to think that they might work just the same.JohnSmith said:
Sorry, I'm not really explaining myself well.
I think philosophy is a bunch of random nonsense made up by men born centuries ago. Though I cannot displace their need to arouse societies interests, they have been overcome by the modern-thoughted man.
Many times do they try to trivialize wrongdoing and attempt to place those wrongdoings into categorizations of thought (with terms that sound pleasing, hence the term usage) over what is simply right and wrong.
Many times do they try to trivialize wrongdoing and attempt to place those wrongdoings into categorizations of thought (with terms that sound pleasing, hence the term usage) over what is simply right and wrong.
