I guess all of the above sounds real profound on woo websites and the like, but it’s just more of the same slick nothing here.
Metaphysics has nothing to do with the supernatural or spiritual or paranormal.
“Well, the Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.”
Sounds like a metaphysical proposition to me.
Besides, NOTHING? Does not a theistic belief system – supernatural, spiritual, paranormal – constitute a metaphysic
Anyway, I know the term is sketchy, that’s why I chose it… the first sentence of your wiki says as much.
It sounds like juvenile fantasy fiction to me. Are you at all interested in separating fantasy from reality?
No, but neither do I craft fanciful entities shooting me full of arrows either.
Actually, that would be a physical proposition. That is why it is relevant to this discussion that physicists can detect no “life force” – they should be able to, if it existed. But physicists are not especially qualified to answer metaphysical questions like the problem of universals, that’s philosophers’ turf.
Without stepping into the land of woo, it seems like we have somewhat of a definition issue here. After all, life itself is an emergent property. As we evaluate a living cell, the processes are well understood and none of those processes alone are considered alive, but once we put it in the package of a cell, we’ve crossed a barrier into it being alive. The more we understand about biology and chemistry, it seems that the line between alive and not-alive becomes fuzzier and fuzzier, and yet this is still a meaningful distinction to us. After all, we’ve built plenty of machines that are far more complex than the simplest of lifeforms, but we don’t consider any of those machines alive.
Intelligence is similar. For eons we thought there was something particularly special about the human intellect, but we are constantly finding was in which other species have similar or, in some cases, superior mental abilities, yet there’s still something fundamentally different about human intelligence that sets us apart. And, like with life, we’ve created systems that can vastly outperform any human in particular tasks, and we’re likely on our way to creating some pretty sophisticated general intelligence systems, but few would argue any of those things are intelligent in the way we see ourselves, or even other lifeforms like chimps or dogs.
This is, I think, how we’ve arrived at mysticism. We can understand these smaller processes, and we can understand emergent principles, but ultimately, the scaling of these systems goes beyond our ability to comprehend them and we cross this nebulous barrier of understanding the part, and still being mystified by the whole. Yet, we have a thoroughly intuitive understanding of that whole, a set of rules that those wholes follow that aren’t trivially derived from our understanding of the smaller parts.
And, of course, this only gets unimaginably more complex as we encounter ecosystems, economies, or the universe on a large scale, yet we still have some levels of understanding and even solid rules and laws that govern those systems. The only real seeming difference is that without the emergence, we simply have noise, static. A soup of the basic chemicals of life will just interact in chaotic ways and fail to make something as a more substantial pattern. We identify something as special, as alive, as intelligent, or whatever other patterns that emerge, when we identify them in that chaos. After all, patterns arise even in pure randomness, monkeys and typewriters and all.
And really, at least to me, to step back into woo for a moment, that’s the awe inspiring and spiritual aspect of it all. That out of all of that mess, we’ve still emerged and we have the ability to understand it. Even if it is just pure chance, life and intelligence is actually making choices, random patterns emerging to become something more and eventually able to define itself, recreate itself, and ultimately define its own destiny. To me, it’s awe-inspiring that out of randomness, not only did this happen, but it MUST happen on a long enough timescale. Isn’t that, after all, the fundamental basis of faith?
The great unchecked assumption is the “you” that is supposed to be doing, thinking and experiencing everything. Once you start looking for it, you’re going down the rabbit hole. When the mind fully realizes there is no “you” and that what you thought of as “you” was just kind of a joke… well, then all these ideas about what we supposedly know take on a new meaning. Most importantly, see through your self as false, then everything else becomes easier. Nothing becomes better or more fun by taking it seriously, including your self.
Insert a needle under your fingernail. Who’s feeling that pain?
It’s not just pure chance though. It’s chance and selection.
That is the assumption, isn’t it? That in order for there to be an experience, there needs to be an experiencer. In reality, not so much. The “you” bit isn’t necessary. Thoughts, ideas, actions, behavior… the are not caused by a “you”, they create the idea that there is one. Very tricky illusion to get out of. Why even try?
A whole shit-load of neurons, who have agreed to call themselves “Trinopus” for purposes of convenience.
(Hey, wait a minute! I don’t like this experiment! Why not “Eat a strawberry. Who’s enjoying the sweetness?” I demand a new lab tutor!)
Apparently, observation is required for something to exist. Therefore, black holes do not exist, nor does dark energy. We can see effects, but not the cause, so there cannot be a cause.
The experiment is well-constructed. Pain is much harder to ignore than pleasure.
Er…huh? Observation can be indirect. I can’t “observe” magnetic forces emanating from a bar magnet, but I can detect the force by indirect means. Black holes are detectable by their effects, most notably the acceleration of mass nearby to high velocities.
I’ve never observed New York City; does it, therefore, not exist?
Seriously, you’re badly mis-stating the principle.
Ah, but you only asked “who’s feeling that pain?” which applies equally well to pleasure. The intensity of a stimulus is not directly proportional to its existence. (Save for some breaking down of the epistemology entirely at the degree of subliminal sensations.)
Also, there can be highly intense pleasure…and extremely minor pain.
Also, this is nitpicking…which is pointless, but sometimes kinda fun. Call it a very minor pleasure!
In GWF Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Mind” he explores this very topic-does the mind exist apart from the body? His reasoning is yes-there is a "life force’ driving the mind.
The fact that pain or pleasure is experienced is not evidence of a “you”. There is no real evidence of a you, it seems to be a social and linguistic construct. Everyone just assumes there is a “me” doing, thinking, seeing etc but there is nothing there that fits that description. The “I” is an invention of the mind. It’s a bit weird obviously, but it can be confirmed by anyone who’s interested.
- Hegel was a religious philosopher, not a scientist.
- His “Phenomenology of Mind” was written back at the turn of the 19th century.
- That wasn’t his reasoning-that was his conclusion.
I think that when conversations are driven to this level of pickiness, it just throws sand into the conversational machine. No, we cannot either prove that we are not computer programs or fictons from a book. Can we just continue this conversation with the basic assumption that we are real, just for the purpose of this thread topic at least, and get on with it?
If “I” am teleported to a habitat on a asteroid with no one else present, I would not exist?