The Ultimate Dilemma Sans Dogma

[Jon]

To live or to die? That is the question.

Let's say you choose to live.

Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?

Will you create or destroy?

These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".

[Hawker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be

At least get the question right.

[Jon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be

At least get the question right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

I said what I intended. Let's not be pedantic.

[Hawker]

And its been asked before...and the answer from the 1500s is about as good as it gets.

[Jon]

And its been asked before...and the answer from the 1500s is about as good as it gets.

Why do you think that? It remains fairly dogmatic.

[Hawker]

And its been asked before...and the answer from the 1500s is about as good as it gets.

Why do you think that? It remains fairly dogmatic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

If I read Shakespeare correctly, he says you cannot know.  Its the opposite of dogma.

[the joint]

To live or to die? That is the question.

Let's say you choose to live.

Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?

Will you create or destroy?

These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".

Gotta figure out what "you" are first before you can construct a reasonable answer to any of these questions.

[Jon]

To live or to die? That is the question.

Let's say you choose to live.

Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?

Will you create or destroy?

These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".

Gotta figure out what "you" are first before you can construct a reasonable answer to any of these questions.

"You" is simply desires and its respective actions. The factors that form "you" are far from universal. A standard for what forms "you" is barely definable in a static context.

Quantify -- that's the word I'm looking for. Is the human experience quantifiable? Not if one wants to cater to the various human experiences we have today.

The mind just is.

[Jon]

And its been asked before...and the answer from the 1500s is about as good as it gets.

Why do you think that? It remains fairly dogmatic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

If I read Shakespeare correctly, he says you cannot know.  Its the opposite of dogma.

Shakespeare reaches a level of the human experience. Specifically, love. He also speaks in absolutes when it comes to poverty and power. It's far from an objective experience overall but he does hit thoughtful points.

He can be said to be existentialist in some aspects.

Hm, thanks for making me think.  

[the joint]

To live or to die? That is the question.

Let's say you choose to live.

Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?

Will you create or destroy?

These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".

Gotta figure out what "you" are first before you can construct a reasonable answer to any of these questions.

ar
"You" is simply desires and its respective actions. The factors that form "you" are far from universal. A standard for what forms "you" is barely definable in a static context.

The mind just is.

Ok, and when "you" recognize and reflect upon those desires such that they become the objects of your perception, what are "you," the subject, then?

By the way, the "mind just is" comment is interesting.

Edit:  Are you equating "mind" with "I"?

[Jon]

To live or to die? That is the question.

Let's say you choose to live.

Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?

Will you create or destroy?

These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".

Gotta figure out what "you" are first before you can construct a reasonable answer to any of these questions.

ar
"You" is simply desires and its respective actions. The factors that form "you" are far from universal. A standard for what forms "you" is barely definable in a static context.

The mind just is.

Ok, and when "you" recognize and reflect upon those desires such that they become the objects of your perception, what are "you," the subject, then?

By the way, the "mind just is" comment is interesting.

"You" is just a perception. Beyond that -- there are countless possibilities.

I don't think sentience as a whole can be quantified beyond just the choices... Different environments, different biology... What produces one perception and one being is countless. It cannot be quantified it seems.

An individual remains divisible from the rest in will but still easily affected by the means of the whole.

Can a mind not be an "I"? This is assuming a mind is sentience.

[the joint]

To live or to die? That is the question.

Let's say you choose to live.

Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?

Will you create or destroy?

These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".

Gotta figure out what "you" are first before you can construct a reasonable answer to any of these questions.

ar
"You" is simply desires and its respective actions. The factors that form "you" are far from universal. A standard for what forms "you" is barely definable in a static context.

The mind just is.

Ok, and when "you" recognize and reflect upon those desires such that they become the objects of your perception, what are "you," the subject, then?

By the way, the "mind just is" comment is interesting.

"You" is just a perception. Beyond that -- there are countless possibilities.

I don't think sentience as a whole can be quantified beyond just the choices... Different environments, different biology... What produces one perception and one being is countless. It cannot be quantified it seems.

An individual remains divisible from the rest in will but still easily affected by the means of the whole.

Can a mind not be an "I"? This is assuming a mind is sentience.

Have you ever read Christopher Langan's CTMU theory at www.ctmu.org?  I think you'd find it interesting...even though Langan is quite the douche sometimes.

[Jon]

For instance, feelings are just subject to biology, culture and future mutations. No one sentient being will react to stimuli in the same way as another.

Other memories will be triggered and other desires will come to mind...

Individuals seem to truly be individuals.

[Jon]

To live or to die? That is the question.

Let's say you choose to live.

Will you accept the wills of others or bend them to your will?

Will you create or destroy?

These are the questions of life. Anything else is merely the desires of others -- and maybe yourself; often these are addressed as "morality" and "the common good".

Gotta figure out what "you" are first before you can construct a reasonable answer to any of these questions.

ar
"You" is simply desires and its respective actions. The factors that form "you" are far from universal. A standard for what forms "you" is barely definable in a static context.

The mind just is.

Ok, and when "you" recognize and reflect upon those desires such that they become the objects of your perception, what are "you," the subject, then?

By the way, the "mind just is" comment is interesting.

"You" is just a perception. Beyond that -- there are countless possibilities.

I don't think sentience as a whole can be quantified beyond just the choices... Different environments, different biology... What produces one perception and one being is countless. It cannot be quantified it seems.

An individual remains divisible from the rest in will but still easily affected by the means of the whole.

Can a mind not be an "I"? This is assuming a mind is sentience.

Have you ever read Christopher Langan's CTMU theory at www.ctmu.org?  I think you'd find it interesting...even though Langan is quite the douche sometimes.

http://www.ctmu.org/?

So, let's reduce theory to what can actually be perceived? Is that the premise of this article?

[Jon]

Anyways, Joint, you're right. This guy has captured my interest.

[the joint]

Anyways, Joint, you're right. This guy has captured my interest.

Me too.  It's one of the most provocative things I've read in a long time.

[Hunterbunter]

No one sentient being will react to stimuli in the same way as another.

Individuals seem to truly be individuals.

Will a sentient being react to exactly the same stimuli in the same way every time?

[Hawker]

Anyways, Joint, you're right. This guy has captured my interest.

Me too.  It's one of the most provocative things I've read in a long time.

Really?  To me, he seems to be playing with the meaning of words rather than the underlying concepts.  A lot of philosophers do this - it makes for a fantastic exercise in exploring what words mean but you actually never get to grips with which ideas matter.

Admittedly I stopped after the second paragraph - there is a time and place for obscurantism but I'm pretty sure that right now I prefer tea and biscuits.

[ineededausername]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_be,_or_not_to_be

At least get the question right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime

I said what I intended. Let's not be pedantic.

the irony is delicious

[the joint]

Anyways, Joint, you're right. This guy has captured my interest.

Me too.  It's one of the most provocative things I've read in a long time.

Really?  To me, he seems to be playing with the meaning of words rather than the underlying concepts.  A lot of philosophers do this - it makes for a fantastic exercise in exploring what words mean but you actually never get to grips with which ideas matter.

Admittedly I stopped after the second paragraph - there is a time and place for obscurantism but I'm pretty sure that right now I prefer tea and biscuits.

He's actually taking a much different approach than simply playing with the meaning of words.  It's a dense read, but from what I gather he attempts to use language itself to create a tautological, circular TOE that reinforces itself linguistically every time it is either affirmed or denied.  As he notes that perception is inherently linguistic (as is the Universe, philosophy, philosophy's derivatives including mathematics and physics, etc.), perception itself becomes the model by which his theory is reinforced.  He purports that the Universe is a self-reifying theory and as such he is essentially creating a theory of theories.