Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

It seems to me that you have a pre-existing grievance that you decided to insert into my very bland, factual observation.

Since I have caused no harm I am not obligated to give any damns.

Still, if you like I can offer you my thoughts and prayers. I hear it's the thing to do when someone has a problem.

[Belindi]

Felix wrote:

But I will say that the one tenet of evolutionary theory I find the most incoherent (there's more than one) is one that Belindi mentioned, i.e., the idea that a blob of protoplasm (going way back to the primeval rain puddle) should have a will to live and "struggle for existence." The obvious question is, why would a mindless protoblob have a will to live? This question is glossed over by calling it "instinct." Have you ever noticed that when scientists don't have a rational explanation for something, they'll come up with a sophisticated sounding term that seems to be meaningful but actually is not?

I wrote no such thing, Felix.That sounds like something Behe might have written.

Natural selection did not begin with a so-called "will to live" a phrase with connotes intelligent awareness. it began with chemical reactions. It's true that 'instinct' is rather vague. But I don't use 'instinct' with regard to protoblobs.

[dawwg]

... I hate those heterosexualists who think the whole purpose of life is to reproduce. That makes homosexuals outliers that have to be explained. Surely, it is thought, they must also serve a role in reproduction. F*ck that! I am not a handmaiden in someone else's need to reproduce.

As an 'Unassigned supportive element within the matrix wherein children play' in fact you are, in my opinion. In essence, how could you not be?

[GaryLouisSmith]

... I hate those heterosexualists who think the whole purpose of life is to reproduce. That makes homosexuals outliers that have to be explained. Surely, it is thought, they must also serve a role in reproduction. F*ck that! I am not a handmaiden in someone else's need to reproduce.

As an 'Unassigned supportive element within the matrix wherein children play' in fact you are, in my opinion. In essence, how could you not be?

I think you are saying that there are certain roles which we MUST MUST MUST play and there is no way out. Is that because of our bad karma? How did we get trapped in this world? But maybe you are in love with this trap. Who wrote the laws that govern this place? Surely they are from a lower band of Archons. "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep among wolves, you must be as cunning as serpents and as simple as doves."

[GaryLouisSmith]

It seems to me that you have a pre-existing grievance that you decided to insert into my very bland, factual observation.

Since I have caused no harm I am not obligated to give any damns.

Still, if you like I can offer you my thoughts and prayers. I hear it's the thing to do when someone has a problem.

I think today that is called gaslighting.

[Felix]

I wrote no such thing, Felix.

Gee whiz, folks are getting a bit testy around here... I was just riffing on your "struggle for existence" comment, Belindi.

[dawwg]

I think you are saying that there are certain roles which we MUST MUST MUST play and there is no way out. Is that because of our bad karma? How did we get trapped in this world?;

Bad karma or not you may agree that 3 dimensional existence has some perks over being a ghost on the two dimensional plane

But maybe you are in love with this trap. Who wrote the laws that govern this place? Surely they are from a lower band of Archons. "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep among wolves, you must be as cunning as serpents and as simple as doves."

Given a choice of 2 or three dimensions and more you would choose the latter and the preservation thereof.

[Sy Borg]

Belinda is right, the first blob didn't need a will to live, only the capacity to persist. That's what life is - persisting against the odds within a universe always moving to greater entropy.

Felix, what I suspect interests you here is the drive to persist. Also note that this drive to persist is only partially physical. We push for our genetic information, our ideas, our way of doing things to persist (which entire cultures do en masse as well).

You (and many) wonder about a germ or a spark within that brings this situation to bear. I think that the "will" or "drive" of an entity is just one attribute that helps entities exist.

- Size, eg, plants and stars is another attribute, that keeps entities hanging around in reality for a long time.
- Solidity or density is another quality commonly seen in things that persist for a long time.
- Good location in space and time is another quality of the persistent.
- Few things last long close to stars. Integration can work either way - either as a dissipating or protective agent.

(Not an exhaustive list). So we persist because we can persist. A drive to persist resulted in more offspring than its lack long before brains evolved. Now we are all stuck/blessed with this wildly intense drive to persist. And it's basically the source of suffering.

In an entropic universe the table is always tilted against us, and we small watery beings - lacking size and density - heroically struggle to keep chemicals, forces and other life forms at bay that would soon reduce them to dust, given an opening.

[GaryLouisSmith]

I think you are saying that there are certain roles which we MUST MUST MUST play and there is no way out. Is that because of our bad karma? How did we get trapped in this world?;

Bad karma or not you may agree that 3 dimensional existence has some perks over being a ghost on the two dimensional plane

But maybe you are in love with this trap. Who wrote the laws that govern this place? Surely they are from a lower band of Archons. "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep among wolves, you must be as cunning as serpents and as simple as doves."

Given a choice of 2 or three dimensions and more you would choose the latter and the preservation thereof.

That is certainly an interesting answer, even though I an unsure what provoked it. I immediately thought of modern art, much of which gave up perspective and became flat. I like modern art and prefer it to three-dimensional perspective. I don’t think that’s what you had in mind. Are ghosts two dimensional? Maybe. I have seen what might be called shadow people. They do seem to be two-dimensional. Right now I can’t think of any reason I would not want to be one. You have to remember that I am the guy who thinks the mind and the body are two, not one. A mind with a body of no dimensions is possible and would be ok. That might be what is called conceptual art. What did you have in mind when you wrote that answer?

[dawwg]

" I have seen what might be called shadow people. They do seem to be two-dimensional. Right now I can’t think of any reason I would not want to be one."

In retrospect, should your preference come into fruition, you might recall the pleasures of the flesh in 3 dimensions as being superior to the pleasures solely of the mind. Sure, we have our episodes of distress but would any soul give up on a chance to be incarnate simply to avoid the discomforts? I think not, but I can't speak for everyone and perhaps you are amongst those who would just as soon pursue a loftier goal and if it is in my power to assist you in that I will. Have you given any thought to end of life options? I read that displacing oxygen with another gas can be humane, perhaps Zyklon B was overly discriminated against. Just trying to help.

[GaryLouisSmith]

" I have seen what might be called shadow people. They do seem to be two-dimensional. Right now I can’t think of any reason I would not want to be one."

In retrospect, should your preference come into fruition, you might recall the pleasures of the flesh in 3 dimensions as being superior to the pleasures solely of the mind.

There is no such thing as pleasures solely of the mind. A mind, just as a mind, without a body, is able to know and feel real sex. Or taste real flavors. Or listen to real sounds. That's what minds do. They go to the thing itself. I as a mind might spy up ahead a material person or a god. There would be no problem going up to that and being intimate with it. Have you ever awoken with sleep paralysis? You can't move but you are awake. Then maybe you feel something like an electric shock and you know a god or spirit is erotically having you. You don't need a body yourself to know all that. As for me dying, that will happen soon enough. I look forward to what will come next. I have no idea what that will be. But if I am pure mind with no body, that too will be interesting.And yes, I like sex and I intend to continue with my addiction.

[dawwg]

There is no such thing as pleasures solely of the mind.

Sometimes I'll read something and think "There it is, the grasping at higher pinnacles of achievement."

i.e. "I seek clarity, and briefly feel a deep spring of optimism, a genuine hope that I discovered how to properly index these waveforms, and categories take form like condensation. Never had you imagined dew could glisten so, surely there has never existed a treasure of man to equal it."

A pleasure solely of the mind, possible, I believe, in the two dimensional state but not restricted to it.

[GaryLouisSmith]

There is no such thing as pleasures solely of the mind.

Sometimes I'll read something and think "There it is, the grasping at higher pinnacles of achievement."

i.e. "I seek clarity, and briefly feel a deep spring of optimism, a genuine hope that I discovered how to properly index these waveforms, and categories take form like condensation. Never had you imagined dew could glisten so, surely there has never existed a treasure of man to equal it."

A pleasure solely of the mind, possible, I believe, in the two dimensional state but not restricted to it.

I, as a direct realist, believe that anything present to my mind exists. I love to sit and think. Everything that comes before my mind's eye exists, which would obviously include abstract things. I also love to lie on my bed and feel. Feelings exist and they are things other than me. Whatever appears to me exists. Nothing is merely a thing "in my mind".

[GaryLouisSmith]

Sometimes I'll read something and think "There it is, the grasping at higher pinnacles of achievement."

i.e. "I seek clarity, and briefly feel a deep spring of optimism, a genuine hope that I discovered how to properly index these waveforms, and categories take form like condensation. Never had you imagined dew could glisten so, surely there has never existed a treasure of man to equal it."

A pleasure solely of the mind, possible, I believe, in the two dimensional state but not restricted to it.

I, as a direct realist, believe that anything present to my mind exists. I love to sit and think. Everything that comes before my mind's eye exists, which would obviously include abstract things. I also love to lie on my bed and feel. Feelings exist and they are things other than me. Whatever appears to me exists. Nothing is merely a thing "in my mind".

Pleasure in not "in the body". The body is only electro-chemical processes. Such processes are "associated" or "correlated" with pleasure, but they and pleasure are totally different things and neither depends on the other for its existence.

[Felix]

Greta: Belinda is right, the first blob didn't need a will to live, only the capacity to persist.

What I was saying is I don't see such persistence leading to a progressive evolution unless the potential for that is inherent in Life itself. I don't buy the idea of it being a haphazard process driven by random chance, it's just too farfetched.