Total Posts:185|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Existance

CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 12:53:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Why did I blink into existence after my birth in 1983?

Why was my existence and consciousness not manifested in 1883? or 1783?

Why was I not brought into consciousness in 2283?

Why is my consciousness in a 6'4 male in America, and not a 4'6 Female in Zimbabwe?

Why am I conscious?

Cogito, ergo sum
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 1:35:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 12:53:36 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
Why did I blink into existence after my birth in 1983?
You didnt. You gradually formed within your mothers womb.
Why was my existence and consciousness not manifested in 1883? or 1783?
Because your brain did not exist.
Why was I not brought into consciousness in 2283?
Because that is the future, and it has not come to pass yet.
Why is my consciousness in a 6'4 male in America, and not a 4'6 Female in Zimbabwe?
because your mother is a female and your father is a male who live in america. Also because you have two X chromosomes.
Why am I conscious?
Because you have a brain.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 1:50:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 1:45:08 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
At face value tkubok is correct, however

How about a deeper thought from someone?

Well it's the answer that's to be expected from an atheist. :D
CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:00:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well it's the answer that's to be expected from an atheist. :D

The funny thing is, (no disrespect to tkubok) I knew tku was going to post a reply, and that his reply would be what it is.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:09:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 1:50:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/24/2010 1:45:08 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
At face value tkubok is correct, however

How about a deeper thought from someone?

Well it's the answer that's to be expected from an atheist. :D

I hope you're not implying that religion is more meaningful than atheism. I would argue that religion gives a less satisfactory answer for the meaning of existence.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:17:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I hope you're not implying that religion is more meaningful than atheism. I would argue that religion gives a less satisfactory answer for the meaning of existence.

Allthough off topic, may I respectfully ask what meaning of existance Athiesm gives you personally Geo? And only Geo. Thank you
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:32:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 2:17:35 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
I hope you're not implying that religion is more meaningful than atheism. I would argue that religion gives a less satisfactory answer for the meaning of existence.


Allthough off topic, may I respectfully ask what meaning of existance Athiesm gives you personally Geo? And only Geo. Thank you

I'm not an Atheist, but I find religion to basically act like it gives superior meaning to life when in fact, it doesn't. I think philosophical inquiry and metaphysics are much more satisfactory. Religion says: Do this, this, and this, and then you reach your destination. Game over. Then it ends. Then the illusion of meaning disappears. Get from point A to point B, the end. To me, that's not meaning.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:34:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 12:53:36 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
Why did I blink into existence after my birth in 1983?

Why was my existence and consciousness not manifested in 1883? or 1783?

Why was I not brought into consciousness in 2283?

Why is my consciousness in a 6'4 male in America, and not a 4'6 Female in Zimbabwe?

Why am I conscious?

Cogito, ergo sum

Cogito ergo sum..... hm..... Bad philosopher to praise :)

Anyway, all of the matter that makes up you came together, through cause and effect, at that particular time. You couldn't possibly be a woman in Africa, or even a dog in Europe. You had to be exactly as you are now in order for your particular type of consciousness to exist.

You are conscious because that is the function of your brain parts.

Aaaaaaaand..... A question for you -

Are your trying to initiate a conversation about dualism or what?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:39:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This doesn't really have anything to do with evolution. When you develop in your mother's womb, you develop your brain, hereby consciousness. Everything you have is developed within your mother's womb. Nothing to argue about here.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:42:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 2:39:52 PM, Mirza wrote:
This doesn't really have anything to do with evolution. When you develop in your mother's womb, you develop your brain, hereby consciousness. Everything you have is developed within your mother's womb. Nothing to argue about here.

Who said anything about evolution?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:44:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
My apologies Geo, I see you have given reason religion does not give meaning, and I could argue this, however what I ask is, what meaning does Athiesm give to life, in your terms.

Secondly, may I ask if you consider yourself agnostic or something else for that matter?
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:44:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 2:42:41 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Who said anything about evolution?
Most of CrappyDebater's threads lately have been about evolution. Somehow he's trying to argue with evolutionists about consciousness.
CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:46:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 2:44:58 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/24/2010 2:42:41 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Who said anything about evolution?
Most of CrappyDebater's threads lately have been about evolution. Somehow he's trying to argue with evolutionists about consciousness.

I am not, this has nothing to do with evolution.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:46:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 2:44:58 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/24/2010 2:42:41 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Who said anything about evolution?
Most of CrappyDebater's threads lately have been about evolution. Somehow he's trying to argue with evolutionists about consciousness.

Ooh, ok, I see.

@ CRAPPY DEBATER:

Would you like to debate me on consciousness and evolution?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:48:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 2:46:21 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
I am not, this has nothing to do with evolution.
Hmm, you put this thread into both science & religion.
CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:50:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Aaaaaaaand..... A question for you -

Are your trying to initiate a conversation about dualism or what?

Thank you VV, this is the best answer given thus far. I ponder such things like most, and have my on ideas and opinions on the subject. This is a good place to ask such questions, as a lot of the people on this website give intelligent answers.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:55:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 2:51:49 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
Hmm, you put this thread into both science & religion.

Can you point me to the Philosophy forum? bump misc.

There, unfortunately, isn't a philosophy forum.

As for Dualism, it's a completely worthless, useless theory of consciousness.

And please do debate me :) I'd be a great match for you on this subject. I'm a neuro-psychology major and a Philosophy major (studying theories of consciousness in depth right now in class, actually).
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 2:59:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 2:44:49 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
My apologies Geo, I see you have given reason religion does not give meaning, and I could argue this, however what I ask is, what meaning does Athiesm give to life, in your terms.

Well, Atheism itself doesn't provide meaning because it makes no metaphysical claims other than no God and thus, no religion. I think once you drop the shackles of religion you can actually begin to search for the true meaning in all of this (even if it means there is no meaning and we create it ourselves.)

I personally find that the true meaning lies in the experience of life rather than reaching a goal. The experience never ceases either. Religion says that there is an end, game over. However, contrary to that and much more profound, Deepak Chopra says the good guys never win and the bad guys never lose. If either one of those happens, it's all over. It's just a continual, cyclical experience of evolution and progress.

Secondly, may I ask if you consider yourself agnostic or something else for that matter?

Pantheist (That is, the Universe is intelligent.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 3:01:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There, unfortunately, isn't a philosophy forum.

As for Dualism, it's a completely worthless, useless theory of consciousness.

And please do debate me :) I'd be a great match for you on this subject. I'm a neuro-psychology major and a Philosophy major (studying theories of consciousness in depth right now in class, actually).

As my name implies, I am indeed a crappy debater. I currently attend school to be a Vascular Ultrasonographer, but would like to also pursue a degree in Philosophy.
I have no doubt you would pulverize me in such debate.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 3:03:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 2:59:52 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Pantheist (That is, the Universe is intelligent.)
I think this is one of the few beliefs that are more illogical than Atheism, in my opinion. Atheists at least don't believe in anything supernatural. Pantheists, however, believe that the Universe is intelligent, but they don't give any source for that. You could say whatever you want about the Universe then. Any form of sign would be much better, like a book.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 3:07:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 3:04:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
Basically, you don't believe in God, but why is an intelligent Universe more real than God?

Why have a god when the universe can do everything itself? Pantheism doesn't make much sense to me either.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:17:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 2:55:45 PM, Vi_Veri wrote:

As for Dualism, it's a completely worthless, useless theory of consciousness.


Nuh-uh.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 4:29:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 12:53:36 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
Why did I blink into existence after my birth in 1983?

Why was my existence and consciousness not manifested in 1883? or 1783?

Why was I not brought into consciousness in 2283?

Why is my consciousness in a 6'4 male in America, and not a 4'6 Female in Zimbabwe?

Why am I conscious?

Cogito, ergo sum

Goddidit - of course. :D
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 4:30:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Why did I blink into existence after my birth in 1983?

Well what does it mean to exist?

If you mean your DNA came into being then this happened some nine months prior to your birth and you blinked into existence because of a set of chemical and biological reactions.

If your existence is defined by what you can remember happening, then your existence probably began at least 2 or 3 years after your birth because most people don't remember anything prior to this.

If your existence is defined by self-awareness, then this happened gradually after your birth as your brain developed in your first year of life.

In any case, I don't know that I would say you "blinked" into existence.

Why was my existence and consciousness not manifested in 1883? or 1783?
Why was I not brought into consciousness in 2283?
Why is my consciousness in a 6'4 male in America, and not a 4'6 Female in Zimbabwe?


Well all of these assume that your consciousness is an independent thing and not a function of your brain, which I think that it is. After all, we don't say that someone in a coma is "conscious". So your conscious didn't manifest itself because your brain hadn't yet come into existence and your brain hadn't come into existence because your parents had yet to procreate.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 4:46:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 12:53:36 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
Why did I blink into existence after my birth in 1983?

The better question is:

Why do you think you blinked into existence in 1983? :)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 7:40:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/25/2010 4:46:43 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 2/24/2010 12:53:36 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
Why did I blink into existence after my birth in 1983?

The better question is:

Why do you think you blinked into existence in 1983? :)

Well, I was born in 1983 but my first memories were sometime after that. My original statement is sort of false, but the idea is correct. I just cannot place a date on my first memories.
This however does not answer my question. I realize my brain became functional to a certain degree at a certain time to have such memories. Yet, the question remains and will always remain as to why my perticular memories belong to me and why my consciousness is different than everyone elses. I can phrase the question differently...

Had my current parents (A + B) not given birth to me(C) Blake would not be born and have memories.
Instead parents (D + E) had a child and gave birth to (C) instead, with the same consciousness, yet in a different body and time.
So... does A + B = C only? Brothers and sisters seem to disprove this.
Or can D + E also = C
for that matter can X + J = C as well?

Consider for a minute that Father and Mother have 100 sextillion children.
Not one of them will ever have the same consciousness, nor the same memories.
How many children then must be had for the cycle to start over?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2010 7:45:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 2:09:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/24/2010 1:50:20 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/24/2010 1:45:08 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
At face value tkubok is correct, however

How about a deeper thought from someone?

Well it's the answer that's to be expected from an atheist. :D

I hope you're not implying that religion is more meaningful than atheism. I would argue that religion gives a less satisfactory answer for the meaning of existence.

Religion is by definition more satisfying than atheism, it is the sugar in the tea. More enjoyable but not good for you.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.