Why am I here instead of someone else?

Talk about things that are not necessarily related to music or the guitar.
User avatar
petermc61
Posts: 5802
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:11 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by petermc61 » Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:09 am

6strings wrote:Maybe the other side of the moon is made of blue cheese. Maybe there is another universe where everything is made of chocolate.
I hope not. I would not know which of those options to wish for! :D

It'd be a tough call.

User avatar
bear
Posts: 3480
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:55 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by bear » Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:26 am

petermc61 wrote:
6strings wrote:Maybe the other side of the moon is made of blue cheese. Maybe there is another universe where everything is made of chocolate.
I hope not. I would not know which of those options to wish for! :D

It'd be a tough call.
chocolate and Chianti, hard to beat.
2013 Jeff Medlin '37 Hauser 640mm sp
2006 Michele Della Guistina Concert 10 string 650mm ce
2005 Jose Ramirez 4E 650mm ce
2005 Manuel Rodriguez Model C3F 650mm sp
2003 Manuel Rodriguez Model D 650mm ce

Lovemyguitar
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:50 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by Lovemyguitar » Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:03 am

I'd go for the blue cheese universe. With wine, of course!

User avatar
AndreiKrylov
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Canada, USA, Mexico, Portugal, Spain

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by AndreiKrylov » Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:58 pm

6strings wrote:Maybe the other side of the moon is made of blue cheese. Maybe there is another universe where everything is made of chocolate.
It is determined by science and spacecraft that moon is not made of blue cheese...
But other universe made of chocolate? Unlikely...but who knows? :)
As far as presence on WWW - there are a lot of artificial intelligence presenting itself as "humans" on WWW already and it is growing every hour... soon will be hard to tell with whom you are discussing stuff - human or robot? :) And yes robot too could ask this - Why am I here instead of someone else?....
then - what you would be your answer?
I'd better speak by music...Please listen Andrei Krylov at Spotify, iTunes, Apple Music, Amazon Prime etc. Thanks!

6strings

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by 6strings » Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:26 pm

AndreiKrylov wrote:
6strings wrote:Maybe the other side of the moon is made of blue cheese. Maybe there is another universe where everything is made of chocolate.
It is determined by science and spacecraft that moon is not made of blue cheese...
But other universe made of chocolate? Unlikely...but who knows? :)
As far as presence on WWW - there are a lot of artificial intelligence presenting itself as "humans" on WWW already and it is growing every hour... soon will be hard to tell with whom you are discussing stuff - human or robot? :) And yes robot too could ask this - Why am I here instead of someone else?....
then - what you would be your answer?
Indeed, albeit I am not sure where you are going with this. Does that imply that same answer should analogously transfer for humans and other intelligence or life in general? I don't think it is necessarily so.

6strings

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by 6strings » Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:25 am

petermc61 wrote:
6strings wrote:What have I ruled consciousness out from and how? And why would my worldview reduce moral and love to physical properties? Ethics == moral, at least for philosophers, and than you will have to define in what context you would like to speak about emotions such as love or hate. I am quite sure we can speak about them in many contexts and at many levels, and I am also pretty sure that those contexts does not have to be mutualy exclusive. I am quite sure a physian would speak about those terms at different level then sociologist or psycologist.

Is it important for you that my worldview is very different from yours? Would you be dissapointed if we came to same conclusion?
First, I agree it is good that we don't have the same worldview. That would be boring.
But you don't know what is my "worldview". How can you even know it is different from yours? It is just another assumption you made up, that you somehow know what my world is based on my position aobut one subject. It would be interesting if you explained how question about consciusness can explain my entire "worldview". Why would it be boring? Maybe there is just one correct "worldview" to which we will all agree sooner orlater, just like one plus one is two? I don't say there is, but what if? If every individual hold it's very own "worldview", we would probably ever never had any kind of society at all; also we obviously agree to more than we disagree (I mean we as in we humans, not you and me :)). But frankly, the word "worldview" is another ambigous term you are using which I really have no idea what you are putting into. But you can always inform me. I truly think that you are interesting to find about my values and what kind of person I am, but don't let me make assumptions, inform us from the source instead.
petermc61 wrote: Just a recap. You said:
6strings wrote:You are a set of atoms and particles comming together and forming your consciousness Thus your (and mine and everybody's else) conscussness is a product of that constellation of particles, however it might come, and when that constellation dissolves, after we die and are consumed by orgnaisms living in dirt, or through burning in a owen, or whatever method you choose, that constellation dissapears and thus the necessary precondition for your consciussnes dissapears as well. Actaually it goes away long before, in the moment we die, since after our death the body can't provide necessary means of air, energy etc to feed the cells and keep all necessary particles in our brain in the right balance and the mechanism we call consciusness dissapears as well as a consequence.

That of course does not proof in any way that there is necessarliy no other form of consciusness but our evidence has not yet found "free form" of consciusness floating around in space, and until then for our sanity we are better to believe in reality we have evidence for. Some people prefer to belive in fantasy stories about afterlife since it supports their human ego, but with just a little common sense and intelligence, prospect of no afterlife is actually even more appealing than any abrahamian promises I have heard yet.
To which I replied:
petermc61 wrote:I simply don't believe everything has to be reduced to atoms and a physical dimension. You appear to.
No. I don't. That is just your very own assumption, or interpretation. There is nothing comming from above statements that can be interpreted the way you do. Conscusness is one subject, like body, or space, or time, or you name it. Discussion of one subject in any means that something said about that subject necessarily translate to all other questions, values etc. Consciusness is a phenomena associated with life and living creatures, and we don't even udnerstand it fully yet. Thus if it is only physical or not or physical and something else, we still have to find out, but regardless of that answer, you can't possibly deduce what I hold about other subjects based on that answer. There is also you assumption that I have put a consciussness in a "physical box", yet in text above I state clearly, that it does not proof that there are no other forms of consciusness, but I stated that we don't have yet any other evidence, at least if you don't believe in whiches, wizards and diverse new age media who made money of talking with deads, but more about it below.
petermc61 wrote:I thought putting consciousness 'in a physical box' (so as to speak) was interesting. Its not a view I agree with. My agreement or otherwise, however, is not a point I made earlier or is it of great interest to me now. What I am trying to explore is whether, having reduced consciousness (at least as I interpret what you said) to physical properties - is whether you think that is the same for all things e.g. morals, ethics etc also are similarly reducible. I thought that was a simple question, but obviously not since we have gone well away from that question.
In a way you can say that I have put a consciussness in a box, but not in that sense as you interpret it. What I have said is that our evidence of consciussnes is closely bound ot life and living being. Thus life seems to be a pre-requisite for consciusness. Since life does exists of atoms, molecyles and is very physical and material it may be that a "physical box" is required for consciusness to exist. Since we don't know for sure what it is, we can't know it for sure, but yet we have no evidence that consciusness floats free in some parallell universe.

What you seem to dislike is idea to tie our mental state to our physical body. I don't know why wold that be a bad thing, you can maybe elaborate on that one, you seem to have problem with that. But in any case, our understanding of consciussnes, if we ever get it, does not diminish it's value, complexity, exclusivity, or whatever you would like to put in it. You can illustrate this with music. For example we know that sound is a mechanical wave propagating through media. In air it's air molecules in motion, in water it's water molecyles in motion etc. We also have thorough knowledge behind physica and mathematics of oscilations, frequencies, harmonies, durations, rhytms and so on. With one word science of music is quite advanced. Does it in any way take away from your experience of music? I am quite sure it does not diminsh a single cent of my enjoyment of Breams Albeniz/Granados recording I am listening at the moment. I don't know for others, but for me, knowing physical theory behind oscilations has never been in way to enjoy music. I am quite sure same thing holds for painting and other arts. So let us go back to your question about what I think about love, moral, ethics and so on. What if we could explain all emotions like love, hate, joy etc? As a matter of fact it seems science is on a pretty good way to explain all of them in terms of physical changes in our brains. What does it matter to you or anyone else in everyday life? Should you suddenly feel less lover or joy? Should you enjoy less arts if you knew what mechanisms they start in your brain? Or entertainment or you name it. Would you value your friends less if you knew friendship is an evolutionary thing necessary for survival? I am quite sure you would be same person. What do you actually think about scientists that research those subjects? Are they cold, simple robots without feelings just because they are trying to understand human nature from biological/sociological/whatever view? Are they less human beings in your eyes? Do they have "wrong" "worldview" if they explain those things in term of material interactions such as substances in brain, meloecyles floating between neurons and so on? An explanation of phenomena does not take away of phenomena's beauty. Just because we know why we see rainbow does notmake rainbow less beautiful or less interesting (at least to me). Finally it is very narrowminded and boring position to hold view that we can't understand or should not understand our world and us in it. It is an impotent position, often held by religious zealots who are fine with trivial explanation that everything is god's will.

User avatar
petermc61
Posts: 5802
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:11 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by petermc61 » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:17 am

Hi 6strings,

You must be really annoyed with me for some reason. Between this post and the last one on the other current "philosophical thread" you have written almost 1600 words to me and asked me 26 questions. You seem bemused that I wont answer your questions. I'm not. I have a life.

In this thread you ask how I know we don't have the same worldview. Well, I know since you have said enough for me to establish a number of important differences. Hence, I can be satisfied that they are not the same. Clearly, I have not placed views on the tables as opposed to challenging your logic and tendency to be dogmatic on occasion. Hence, it seems that you are unable to establish whether we have the same worldview. One of the aspects of my worldview is that is your problem, not mine. :wink: :D

For the record, I do like some of your lines of thought (for example the importance of seeking to understand the world around us and the role of science I'm doing this).I just find that your arguments tend to lose weight because of a tendency to overreach.

Time to practise my guitar. I also need to understand why three different brands of A string (on three different guitars) broke when tuned up to B to play Dyen's Alba Nera..... Is this Dyen's punishing me for my recalcitrance?

Cheers
Peter

6strings

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by 6strings » Sun Sep 18, 2016 2:53 am

petermc61 wrote:Between this post and the last one on the other current "philosophical thread" you have written almost 1600 words to me and asked me 26 questions. You seem bemused that I wont answer your questions. I'm not. I have a life.
Well much of a life if you are counting my words and questions. I have no idea how many I have written, I have an easy time to write, and goes fast. That post took me really just few minutes. You would have better spent that time if you reflected over what is written and maybe answered somethign in constructive way instead of writing flamatory gibberish. Maybe you should follow your very own advice and restrain from displaying more ignorance.
petermc61 wrote:In this thread you ask how I know we don't have the same worldview. Well, I know since you have said enough for me to establish a number of important differences.
The only problem is that you have established that difference from the very first get go, based on false premise and you are not enough of a man to admit you reasoned to hastily, or probably didn't reason at all.
petermc61 wrote:Clearly, I have not placed views on the tables as opposed to challenging your logic and tendency to be dogmatic on occasion.
Actually that is exactly what you did, and what you do even with this very post. And that on very dogmatic premise that we should not mix physical word with "higher values".
petermc61 wrote:Hence, it seems that you are unable to establish whether we have the same worldview. One of the aspects of my worldview is that is your problem, not mine. :wink: :D
And here you are deducing wrong conclusions based on your own assumptions once again.Please at least learn how to use word "hence" correctly. But beside incorrect usage of word hence, since you can't deduce that conclusion from your previous statement in any meaningfull way, I never said that I know what is your worldview. Human you are making assumptions to the left and right which are totally wrong and only in your head. You are either too hastily or don't even read what is written. Neither you or I know each other and thus we can't know each others "worldview", and for the second, it is such an ambigious term that you probably have no idea what you are talking about at all (or I), and I can possibly know even less what you wan't to ask or say since you are not able to express yourself in any meaningfull (nonambigious) way. You are persisting on very dogmatic view and insisting that we can't possiblty have anything in common, probably without even knowing why and without even knowing what you really want to proof. And you refuse any discussion on very dogmatic premise.

For the record, no I am not annoyed with you. That is not reason why I write reply. I just thought about what is said and think it is said to leave such grave logical misstakes, wrong assumptions and illogical conclusions not discussed. I think it is usefull and interesting to discuss it, it opened for some other questions which I find meaningfull too.

How many words is this post? It took 2 minutes of my life to write.

User avatar
petermc61
Posts: 5802
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:11 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by petermc61 » Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:03 am

Sigh.

You just don't get it, do you?

All the best
Peter

P.S. I didn't really count the words, you know. There are easy tools to do that online.... :-)
P.P.S. The use of the word 'hence" in that context was perfectly legitimate. :wink:

6strings

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by 6strings » Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:07 am

petermc61 wrote:Sigh.

You just don't get it, do you?

All the best
Peter

P.S. I didn't really count the words, you know. There are easy tools to do that online.... :-)
I got, but you didn't. Usually old grumpy men with konservative views don't ... ;-)

You still made the work to copy-paste, collect posts ... :-)

Good luck with Dyens, at least you have good music taste old grumpy man :)

User avatar
petermc61
Posts: 5802
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:11 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by petermc61 » Sun Sep 18, 2016 3:24 am

We may not agree but you certainly agree with my wife's view of me sometimes ('grumpy old man'). Maybe that's a good place to leave it. :lol:

User avatar
AndreiKrylov
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Canada, USA, Mexico, Portugal, Spain

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by AndreiKrylov » Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:20 pm

6strings wrote:
AndreiKrylov wrote:
6strings wrote:Maybe the other side of the moon is made of blue cheese. Maybe there is another universe where everything is made of chocolate.
It is determined by science and spacecraft that moon is not made of blue cheese...
But other universe made of chocolate? Unlikely...but who knows? :)
As far as presence on WWW - there are a lot of artificial intelligence presenting itself as "humans" on WWW already and it is growing every hour... soon will be hard to tell with whom you are discussing stuff - human or robot? :) And yes robot too could ask this - Why am I here instead of someone else?....
then - what you would be your answer?
Indeed, albeit I am not sure where you are going with this. Does that imply that same answer should analogously transfer for humans and other intelligence or life in general? I don't think it is necessarily so.
We already started to mix human and machine intelligence, now it is still more human but soon machines will probably take over. :)
I'd better speak by music...Please listen Andrei Krylov at Spotify, iTunes, Apple Music, Amazon Prime etc. Thanks!

6strings

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by 6strings » Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:55 pm

AndreiKrylov wrote:We already started to mix human and machine intelligence, now it is still more human but soon machines will probably take over. :)
Aha, I thought you wold go over to standard claim that since answer to robot would be "humans created you", that implies that humans are created as well by something, which my not necessarily follow.

No idea if AI will take over the world. I don't think so, but AI has been subject of great deal good sci-fi movies last 2 or 3 years (Automata, Transcendence, Chappie, Ex Machina). And of course grand daddy of them all Blade Runner should not be forgotten.

PeteJ
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:52 pm

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by PeteJ » Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:29 am

petermc61 wrote:We may not agree but you certainly agree with my wife's view of me sometimes ('grumpy old man'). Maybe that's a good place to leave it. :lol:
As one grumpy old man to another, I admire your ability to keep cool.

glassynails
Posts: 5542
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:20 am
Location: Westbrook, Maine

Re: Why am I here instead of someone else?

Post by glassynails » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:17 am

Glassynails is wondering once again this morning about rebirth?

You may laugh, etc, but the fact is real (at least to me as far as I can tell) that I exist. Yes, I realize this contradicts my recent post, but like I said "I exist as far as I can tell" or at least right now it "feels like I exist".

Ok, so with that established. If my mother and my father got together with 2 different people instead of themselves and gave birth, which child would I be? If my mother and father had never met would I be here as someone else, experiencing life in another body?

Like I've always thought. I'm here now as far as I can tell. How come after I die (this body) won't "I" experience another life in another body? What's to say that i WON'T happen again? If you answer that it won't, then I'll respond - that it's happened once, why can't it happen again?

Then the question also arises - why won't I be another creature? Then more questions arise about the "I" and even being here.

Maybe I'm not really here .... I don't know anymore. Maybe we're all here and always are? Maybe there never is an "I", we're all one.
"GLASSYNAILS" on Youtoob for my "no edit" - "no fakery" audio recordings. Just me, my Alhambra 7p spruce, and an Olympus ls-10 portable recorder.

Return to “The Café”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Briant, CommonCrawl [Bot], montana and 5 guests