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

[stevie]

The appearance appears independent of your speculative question "Is it a real thing? ".

The occurrence of appearance can be independent from everything else. But appearance or experiencing the appearance is not an objective thing but a subjective experience. So, ultimately it will depend on many things, and that first impression may have an impact on our speculations.

You are just adding further speculations.

I am sorry, but I do not get you. What are the speculations that I have added anew to this discussion?

"The occurrence of appearance can be independent from everything else"
"But appearance or experiencing the appearance is not an objective thing but a subjective experience."
"So, ultimately it will depend on many things" which is -btw- a contradiction to "The occurrence of appearance can be independent from everything else"


"that first impression may have an impact on our speculations." I conceive of not being a sepculation only because saying "may" implicitly includes the option "may not".

[Sushan]

The occurrence of appearance can be independent from everything else. But appearance or experiencing the appearance is not an objective thing but a subjective experience. So, ultimately it will depend on many things, and that first impression may have an impact on our speculations.

You are just adding further speculations.

I am sorry, but I do not get you. What are the speculations that I have added anew to this discussion?

"The occurrence of appearance can be independent from everything else"
"But appearance or experiencing the appearance is not an objective thing but a subjective experience."
"So, ultimately it will depend on many things" which is -btw- a contradiction to "The occurrence of appearance can be independent from everything else"


"that first impression may have an impact on our speculations." I conceive of not being a sepculation only because saying "may" implicitly includes the option "may not".

Well, I see that none of these quotes are backed by scientific evidence. But I think accepted norms support my speculations (as you said) regarding appearances, its occurrence and experiencing the appearances. Will they still remain as mere speculations?

[Elephant]

The concept of 'love on the first sight' is another concept that is found in literature of romance genre. Occasionally, like this author, people claim of having this feeling or the moment.

Is it a real thing? Or is it a 'made-up' reason for getting attracted towards or falling in love with someone when it is impossible to deliver a rational reason? Or is it a variation of the Deja vu phenomenan?

It's made-up, or rather it's a misunderstood state of attraction. Love at first sight is not love. I for one had not expected to fall for someone. When I saw this person, I didn't feel anything. But shortly thereafter, we had an interaction. The personality and the interaction made me fall. I cried actually on two occasions cause I knew a relationship wouldn't work out. lol. I grieved already for what couldn't happen.

[LuckyR]

Yes, I believe it can.

Thank you. Deja vu phenomenon is not yet understood clearly, but one theory says that it is a connection to a past memory which we do not recognize as such but as a new event that somehow feel like has happened earlier. So, can this 'love on first sight' thing be repeated and reproduced?

I don't understand what you are asking.

In simple terms, what I wanted to ask was, can this 'love on the first sight' thing can happen more than once for the same person towards different counterparts, given that it has something to do with deja vu phenomenon?

Yes, I believe that one person can have a love at first sight experience with more than one person. Mainly because we agreed that love at first sight is sometimes a post hoc recollection reimagining of the time of first meeting someone you feel strongly towards.

[Sushan]

The concept of 'love on the first sight' is another concept that is found in literature of romance genre. Occasionally, like this author, people claim of having this feeling or the moment.

Is it a real thing? Or is it a 'made-up' reason for getting attracted towards or falling in love with someone when it is impossible to deliver a rational reason? Or is it a variation of the Deja vu phenomenan?

It's made-up, or rather it's a misunderstood state of attraction. Love at first sight is not love. I for one had not expected to fall for someone. When I saw this person, I didn't feel anything. But shortly thereafter, we had an interaction. The personality and the interaction made me fall. I cried actually on two occasions cause I knew a relationship wouldn't work out. lol. I grieved already for what couldn't happen.

That is quite the experience that most of us are familiar with. Some people tend to sweeten the experience using the term 'love on the first sight. And some may attribute to the concept involuntarily when they think about the experience retrospectively. I too have felt attraction on the first sight, but never have felt love.

[Sushan]

Thank you. Deja vu phenomenon is not yet understood clearly, but one theory says that it is a connection to a past memory which we do not recognize as such but as a new event that somehow feel like has happened earlier. So, can this 'love on first sight' thing be repeated and reproduced?

I don't understand what you are asking.

In simple terms, what I wanted to ask was, can this 'love on the first sight' thing can happen more than once for the same person towards different counterparts, given that it has something to do with deja vu phenomenon?

Yes, I believe that one person can have a love at first sight experience with more than one person. Mainly because we agreed that love at first sight is sometimes a post hoc recollection reimagining of the time of first meeting someone you feel strongly towards.

True. On the condition of agreeing towards the particular concept or the feeling being a retrospective idea, we can feel 'love on the first sight' more than once. It is way far from the concept or the thought of soulmate.

[stevie]

You are just adding further speculations.

I am sorry, but I do not get you. What are the speculations that I have added anew to this discussion?

"The occurrence of appearance can be independent from everything else"
"But appearance or experiencing the appearance is not an objective thing but a subjective experience."
"So, ultimately it will depend on many things" which is -btw- a contradiction to "The occurrence of appearance can be independent from everything else"


"that first impression may have an impact on our speculations." I conceive of not being a sepculation only because saying "may" implicitly includes the option "may not".

Well, I see that none of these quotes are backed by scientific evidence. But I think accepted norms support my speculations (as you said) regarding appearances, its occurrence and experiencing the appearances. Will they still remain as mere speculations?

"accepted norms" of course are just other appearances. These seem to be particular philosophilcal outlooks not universally shared by all individuals. But of course if these outlooks appear persuasive too you, why shouldn't you follow them? "Persuasiveness" still is another appearance. One may go by every appearance without believing that it is or represents truth/reality.

[Sushan]

I am sorry, but I do not get you. What are the speculations that I have added anew to this discussion?

"The occurrence of appearance can be independent from everything else"
"But appearance or experiencing the appearance is not an objective thing but a subjective experience."
"So, ultimately it will depend on many things" which is -btw- a contradiction to "The occurrence of appearance can be independent from everything else"


"that first impression may have an impact on our speculations." I conceive of not being a sepculation only because saying "may" implicitly includes the option "may not".

Well, I see that none of these quotes are backed by scientific evidence. But I think accepted norms support my speculations (as you said) regarding appearances, its occurrence and experiencing the appearances. Will they still remain as mere speculations?

"accepted norms" of course are just other appearances. These seem to be particular philosophilcal outlooks not universally shared by all individuals. But of course if these outlooks appear persuasive too you, why shouldn't you follow them? "Persuasiveness" still is another appearance. One may go by every appearance without believing that it is or represents truth/reality.

Is there anything that can be taken as exact things, or things that are not included into the group of 'appearances' as you say? If everything os an appearance, do we have anything that is universally agreed or shared commonly?

[stevie]

"The occurrence of appearance can be independent from everything else"
"But appearance or experiencing the appearance is not an objective thing but a subjective experience."
"So, ultimately it will depend on many things" which is -btw- a contradiction to "The occurrence of appearance can be independent from everything else"


"that first impression may have an impact on our speculations." I conceive of not being a sepculation only because saying "may" implicitly includes the option "may not".

Well, I see that none of these quotes are backed by scientific evidence. But I think accepted norms support my speculations (as you said) regarding appearances, its occurrence and experiencing the appearances. Will they still remain as mere speculations?

"accepted norms" of course are just other appearances. These seem to be particular philosophilcal outlooks not universally shared by all individuals. But of course if these outlooks appear persuasive too you, why shouldn't you follow them? "Persuasiveness" still is another appearance. One may go by every appearance without believing that it is or represents truth/reality.

Is there anything that can be taken as exact things, or things that are not included into the group of 'appearances' as you say? If everything os an appearance, do we have anything that is universally agreed or shared commonly?

I'd say that what is agreed upon in a collective depends on history and culture. As a consequence originally there isn't anything that is universally agreed upon since there is a diversity of histories and cultures.
However it seems that the sense perceptions have the potential to serve as a universal basis because scientific evidences are independent of (cultural) beliefs and it can be observed that individuals from different cultures nowadays can cooperate in fields of scientific research. However the prerequisite is that scientific standards are universally agreed upon which is not always the case because individuals tend to be carried away by speculative beliefs and interpret scientific results instead of confining themselves to reports on perceptual observations exclusively.

[stevie]

Well, I see that none of these quotes are backed by scientific evidence. But I think accepted norms support my speculations (as you said) regarding appearances, its occurrence and experiencing the appearances. Will they still remain as mere speculations?

"accepted norms" of course are just other appearances. These seem to be particular philosophilcal outlooks not universally shared by all individuals. But of course if these outlooks appear persuasive too you, why shouldn't you follow them? "Persuasiveness" still is another appearance. One may go by every appearance without believing that it is or represents truth/reality.

Is there anything that can be taken as exact things, or things that are not included into the group of 'appearances' as you say? If everything os an appearance, do we have anything that is universally agreed or shared commonly?

I'd say that what is agreed upon in a collective depends on history and culture. As a consequence originally there isn't anything that is universally agreed upon since there is a diversity of histories and cultures.
However it seems that the sense perceptions have the potential to serve as a universal basis because scientific evidences are independent of (cultural) beliefs and it can be observed that individuals from different cultures nowadays can cooperate in fields of scientific research. However the prerequisite is that scientific standards are universally agreed upon which is not always the case because individuals tend to be carried away by speculative beliefs and interpret scientific results instead of confining themselves to reports on perceptual observations exclusively.

So there may be appearances like "scientific evidences" that seem to have the potential to be commonly shared but are however only commonly shared in scientific communities that agree upon scientific standards.
I can't see why anything should be other than "appearance" because I don't see the contrast you see between "appearance" and "exact things" since "exact things" are merely a type of appearances.

[Sushan]

Well, I see that none of these quotes are backed by scientific evidence. But I think accepted norms support my speculations (as you said) regarding appearances, its occurrence and experiencing the appearances. Will they still remain as mere speculations?

"accepted norms" of course are just other appearances. These seem to be particular philosophilcal outlooks not universally shared by all individuals. But of course if these outlooks appear persuasive too you, why shouldn't you follow them? "Persuasiveness" still is another appearance. One may go by every appearance without believing that it is or represents truth/reality.

Is there anything that can be taken as exact things, or things that are not included into the group of 'appearances' as you say? If everything os an appearance, do we have anything that is universally agreed or shared commonly?

I'd say that what is agreed upon in a collective depends on history and culture. As a consequence originally there isn't anything that is universally agreed upon since there is a diversity of histories and cultures.
However it seems that the sense perceptions have the potential to serve as a universal basis because scientific evidences are independent of (cultural) beliefs and it can be observed that individuals from different cultures nowadays can cooperate in fields of scientific research. However the prerequisite is that scientific standards are universally agreed upon which is not always the case because individuals tend to be carried away by speculative beliefs and interpret scientific results instead of confining themselves to reports on perceptual observations exclusively.

That is the issue. As humans, we are almost always biased. Whatever the scientific evidence is rejected by the predetermined minds of certain people. The best example is the believers about a flat-earth . So, not only culture and history, but also science does not have a universal agreement on everything.

[Sushan]

"accepted norms" of course are just other appearances. These seem to be particular philosophilcal outlooks not universally shared by all individuals. But of course if these outlooks appear persuasive too you, why shouldn't you follow them? "Persuasiveness" still is another appearance. One may go by every appearance without believing that it is or represents truth/reality.

Is there anything that can be taken as exact things, or things that are not included into the group of 'appearances' as you say? If everything os an appearance, do we have anything that is universally agreed or shared commonly?

I'd say that what is agreed upon in a collective depends on history and culture. As a consequence originally there isn't anything that is universally agreed upon since there is a diversity of histories and cultures.
However it seems that the sense perceptions have the potential to serve as a universal basis because scientific evidences are independent of (cultural) beliefs and it can be observed that individuals from different cultures nowadays can cooperate in fields of scientific research. However the prerequisite is that scientific standards are universally agreed upon which is not always the case because individuals tend to be carried away by speculative beliefs and interpret scientific results instead of confining themselves to reports on perceptual observations exclusively.

So there may be appearances like "scientific evidences" that seem to have the potential to be commonly shared but are however only commonly shared in scientific communities that agree upon scientific standards.
I can't see why anything should be other than "appearance" because I don't see the contrast you see between "appearance" and "exact things" since "exact things" are merely a type of appearances.

But some of these appearances have been proven as either exact things or solid things, and the human society and technology have been built either upon them or being based on them. I think that proves the existence of the contrast between appearances and exact things.

[stevie]

"accepted norms" of course are just other appearances. These seem to be particular philosophilcal outlooks not universally shared by all individuals. But of course if these outlooks appear persuasive too you, why shouldn't you follow them? "Persuasiveness" still is another appearance. One may go by every appearance without believing that it is or represents truth/reality.

Is there anything that can be taken as exact things, or things that are not included into the group of 'appearances' as you say? If everything os an appearance, do we have anything that is universally agreed or shared commonly?

I'd say that what is agreed upon in a collective depends on history and culture. As a consequence originally there isn't anything that is universally agreed upon since there is a diversity of histories and cultures.
However it seems that the sense perceptions have the potential to serve as a universal basis because scientific evidences are independent of (cultural) beliefs and it can be observed that individuals from different cultures nowadays can cooperate in fields of scientific research. However the prerequisite is that scientific standards are universally agreed upon which is not always the case because individuals tend to be carried away by speculative beliefs and interpret scientific results instead of confining themselves to reports on perceptual observations exclusively.

That is the issue. As humans, we are almost always biased. Whatever the scientific evidence is rejected by the predetermined minds of certain people. The best example is the believers about a flat-earth . So, not only culture and history, but also science does not have a universal agreement on everything.

It seems we have to differentaite between "science" and "scientists". Of course "scientists" like all humans are "weak" because they may also be governed - even if only momentarily - by wishes and individual needs. However "science" which is an academinc craft has universally valid standards.

So there may be appearances like "scientific evidences" that seem to have the potential to be commonly shared but are however only commonly shared in scientific communities that agree upon scientific standards.
I can't see why anything should be other than "appearance" because I don't see the contrast you see between "appearance" and "exact things" since "exact things" are merely a type of appearances.

But some of these appearances have been proven as either exact things or solid things, and the human society and technology have been built either upon them or being based on them. I think that proves the existence of the contrast between appearances and exact things.

"But some of these appearances have been proven as either exact things or solid things":
yes, "proofs" seem to be appearances that satisfy the needs of particular human cognitive faculties.

"and the human society and technology have been built either upon them or being based on them":
yes, all of human society and technology is based on appearances, "human society and technology" being appearances themselves.

"I think that proves the existence of the contrast between appearances and exact things.":
If you have this appearance then that might be caused by connotations not necessarily connected with "appearances" and "exact things" but connected with your concepts because to me neither this "proof" nor the thought of "the existence of the contrast" appears but when using the same verbal expressions "appearances" and "exact things".

[Sushan]

Is there anything that can be taken as exact things, or things that are not included into the group of 'appearances' as you say? If everything os an appearance, do we have anything that is universally agreed or shared commonly?

I'd say that what is agreed upon in a collective depends on history and culture. As a consequence originally there isn't anything that is universally agreed upon since there is a diversity of histories and cultures.
However it seems that the sense perceptions have the potential to serve as a universal basis because scientific evidences are independent of (cultural) beliefs and it can be observed that individuals from different cultures nowadays can cooperate in fields of scientific research. However the prerequisite is that scientific standards are universally agreed upon which is not always the case because individuals tend to be carried away by speculative beliefs and interpret scientific results instead of confining themselves to reports on perceptual observations exclusively.

That is the issue. As humans, we are almost always biased. Whatever the scientific evidence is rejected by the predetermined minds of certain people. The best example is the believers about a flat-earth . So, not only culture and history, but also science does not have a universal agreement on everything.

It seems we have to differentaite between "science" and "scientists". Of course "scientists" like all humans are "weak" because they may also be governed - even if only momentarily - by wishes and individual needs. However "science" which is an academinc craft has universally valid standards.

So there may be appearances like "scientific evidences" that seem to have the potential to be commonly shared but are however only commonly shared in scientific communities that agree upon scientific standards.
I can't see why anything should be other than "appearance" because I don't see the contrast you see between "appearance" and "exact things" since "exact things" are merely a type of appearances.

But some of these appearances have been proven as either exact things or solid things, and the human society and technology have been built either upon them or being based on them. I think that proves the existence of the contrast between appearances and exact things.

"But some of these appearances have been proven as either exact things or solid things":
yes, "proofs" seem to be appearances that satisfy the needs of particular human cognitive faculties.

"and the human society and technology have been built either upon them or being based on them":
yes, all of human society and technology is based on appearances, "human society and technology" being appearances themselves.

"I think that proves the existence of the contrast between appearances and exact things.":
If you have this appearance then that might be caused by connotations not necessarily connected with "appearances" and "exact things" but connected with your concepts because to me neither this "proof" nor the thought of "the existence of the contrast" appears but when using the same verbal expressions "appearances" and "exact things".

Science as a concept, does it actually has a value without its admirers, the scientists, and those who reject it? Science is everywhere. And it is included in almost everything. But will it have any value if people do not care about that?

So, still everything remain as appearances! Then, let me ask, are the accepted norms and approved scientific facts and theories, are they appearances that are seen similar by quite a large number of people?

[stevie]

I'd say that what is agreed upon in a collective depends on history and culture. As a consequence originally there isn't anything that is universally agreed upon since there is a diversity of histories and cultures.
However it seems that the sense perceptions have the potential to serve as a universal basis because scientific evidences are independent of (cultural) beliefs and it can be observed that individuals from different cultures nowadays can cooperate in fields of scientific research. However the prerequisite is that scientific standards are universally agreed upon which is not always the case because individuals tend to be carried away by speculative beliefs and interpret scientific results instead of confining themselves to reports on perceptual observations exclusively.

That is the issue. As humans, we are almost always biased. Whatever the scientific evidence is rejected by the predetermined minds of certain people. The best example is the believers about a flat-earth . So, not only culture and history, but also science does not have a universal agreement on everything.

It seems we have to differentaite between "science" and "scientists". Of course "scientists" like all humans are "weak" because they may also be governed - even if only momentarily - by wishes and individual needs. However "science" which is an academinc craft has universally valid standards.

So there may be appearances like "scientific evidences" that seem to have the potential to be commonly shared but are however only commonly shared in scientific communities that agree upon scientific standards.
I can't see why anything should be other than "appearance" because I don't see the contrast you see between "appearance" and "exact things" since "exact things" are merely a type of appearances.

But some of these appearances have been proven as either exact things or solid things, and the human society and technology have been built either upon them or being based on them. I think that proves the existence of the contrast between appearances and exact things.

"But some of these appearances have been proven as either exact things or solid things":
yes, "proofs" seem to be appearances that satisfy the needs of particular human cognitive faculties.

"and the human society and technology have been built either upon them or being based on them":
yes, all of human society and technology is based on appearances, "human society and technology" being appearances themselves.

"I think that proves the existence of the contrast between appearances and exact things.":
If you have this appearance then that might be caused by connotations not necessarily connected with "appearances" and "exact things" but connected with your concepts because to me neither this "proof" nor the thought of "the existence of the contrast" appears but when using the same verbal expressions "appearances" and "exact things".

Science as a concept, does it actually has a value without its admirers, the scientists, and those who reject it? Science is everywhere. And it is included in almost everything. But will it have any value if people do not care about that?

So, still everything remain as appearances! Then, let me ask, are the accepted norms and approved scientific facts and theories, are they appearances that are seen similar by quite a large number of people?

Applying the brains extraordinary computational capacities to purposes of survival the human organism necessarily arrived at science. If others apply science and make available their results one doesn't need to engage in science.

"the accepted norms and approved scientific facts and theories" are the result of appearances matching the human cognitive apparatus independent of beliefs.