Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jank_ram t1_j6avq9m wrote

Reply to comment by EducatorBig6648 in Cosmic nihilism, existential joy | Human consciousness, and our need for meaning in a meaningless world, is the source of both tragic pessimism and the intense joy we take in life. by IAI_Admin

Yes I agree that the self is outside all of that, and that if we can be sure of anything, is that it exists, at least one knows he himself exists. Now it's really interesting, you say that every thing your consciousness/self (I think they are the same thing) experiences is also a self proving concept, but I say to that, we don't actually know if there are any patterns at all, in one example, if all patterns exist then no pattern exists. How that would apply in the real world is that causality could be a myth and it's infinity fluctuating between causality and everything else is what exists making room for it to be interpreted yet still be objectively not there. Also I think "relations" is a better word than "patterns" It's more fundamental

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6c2gin wrote

>Now it's really interesting, you say that every thing your consciousness/self (I think they are the same thing) experiences is also a self proving concept,

No, that is not what I was saying at all. You're dangling at least one foot into strawman argument territory with that.

>but I say to that, we don't actually know if there are any patterns at all,

Yes, we do. Consciousness proves there are patterns. You can't have one without the other. Disagreeing with this can only mean you don't know what patterns are.

>in one example, if all patterns exist then no pattern exists.

I have not said anything about ALL patterns existing.

>How that would apply in the real world is that causality could be a myth and it's infinity fluctuating between causality and everything else is what exists making room for it to be interpreted yet still be objectively not there.

I have not gone into causality. Causality is about cause and effect. I have been talking about the self existing and what it existing entails. I mean, I have not named causality among the six things, have I?

>Also I think "relations" is a better word than "patterns" It's more fundamental

Explain what you mean by "relations", please. Because again it seems you don't understand what patterns are.

Put another way, relations with what? My point is that you have the self. What makes the self the self? X does. X proves that we also have patterns and consequences.

You want to change this to X actually proving we have relations. Relations with what? And how would those relations NOT come down to patterns (and, possibly, also consequences) fundamentally?

1

jank_ram t1_j6c5yib wrote

Okay I might have wildly misunderstood what you mean by patterns, I think of it as mathematical pattern, as In any thing that can be represented mathematically would be a pattern, have I got that wrong?

1

EducatorBig6648 t1_j6cb9bq wrote

Yes, you go that wrong. I gave you an example above: Your eyes respond to certain patterns (the visual part of the electromagnetic spectrum) but not to other patterns (the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum).

That is itself a pattern; Your eyes do not "randomly" respond to different parts of the spectrum or to electromagnetic fields, they function consistently hence you can see which is a reliable means for you to examine your surroundings for patterns within the patterns your brain instantly interprets for you.

Can that be represented mathematically? Possibly, maybe, probably, but in terms of this conversation, I wouldn't care if it can't.

A key thing to note above is that your eyes reacting "randomly" would mean confusion. There's a "relation" to keep in mind: confusion and patterns. Bringing in mathematical representation is redundant

​

Clarification: I put "randomly" in quotes because as far as I can tell (while not being an expert on quantum physics etc.) objectively there is no such thing.

1