Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: Shadowrage on September 16, 2003, 07:53 AM
I can see this argument getting ever closer to its only possible outcome which is this.

Yup. If we start doubting what our senses tell us, we might as well doubt everything. So, assuming that our senses are giving us a reasonable image of something, we can make definitions about sound and the color red, and if those definitions are generic enough they can live on whether we're there to look at them or not. Actually, if something that meets that definition occurred before we existed to make that definition, it can still be considered an instance of it.

Quote from: Shadowrage on September 16, 2003, 07:53 AM
I can see this argument getting ever closer to its only possible outcome which is this.

How do you know sound is sound? Because it says so in a book? Because you think it is? What if you are wrong? You claim to have a brain that understands these concepts, What if you are wrong?
Sound is a manmade idea the word itself and the theory around it created by us, so from man's perception it is what it is. It doesn't mean that our understanding of it is correct, or for that matter wrong. We claim to be able to measure sound, What if we cannot? What about if the entire universe as we think we know it is completly diffrent.

How can you be sure thinking makes you exist? In order to do this you are claiming to understand the very principales of existance.

I gave you the definition of sound, and quoted myself for those who did not read it at first. As I have said, we did not invent sound, it is not there because we made it. We simply discovered it's existence and sought(sp?) to understand it. Everything we know and everything we are, is based upon our senses and what we have been taught.

Quote
When viewing the world through a kaleidoscope there are many copies of whatever you see which are distorted and randomly arranged. Does this mean the world really looks like that? To somebody who had only ever seen through a kaleidoscope the answer would be yes. They would know no diffrent.

Maybe as humans we are a method of looking upon something, a preception altering view for some greater being or whatever you wish to imagine. How can any of you be sure that all your lives you have not been viewing the world through a human kaleidoscope?

*sorry for any spelling mistakes*  

I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion, perhaps rephrase? Comparing the world to a kaleidoscope is absurd, nothing in the world is identical...

We did invent sound without humans the term "sound" would not exist you are looking at it too scientifically.  

The kaleidoscope comment makes pefect sense, i used it as just an example of something that can change how the world seems when looked through. Then drew a theortical comparison to human beings, how do we know our eye sight itself doesn't have a similar function?

The thread has also deviated like most threads do to not just discussing the falling tree problem

Nothing in the world is identical? Did i claim it was ?

Well, if you look at it in a theological way, then the most relevant answer is that you don't know anything, so you might as well stop trying to reason about it.

If you on the other hand look at it in a scientific way, then yes, the tree makes a sound when it falls, for the scientific definition of sound doesn't require anyone to be there to listen, it only requires the pressure waves.

Sure, it's possible that we are seeing the world through a kalidoscope of some sort.  Yes it's possible that we are enslaved by AI's harvesting our bodies for energy.  Yes, it's possible that nothing actually exists except in our minds (ie, a dream).  But, although any of those may be true: we are still able to think.  I can think that I don't exist, but I'm still thinking.  I can think that what I'm seeing is fake, but I'm still thinking.  If I think that I can't think, that's a contradiction.  Thinking is the basis of existance.  The existance of our mind, therefore, is necessary for us to exist.

QuoteThe thread has also deviated like most threads do to not just discussing the falling tree problem

yes, but we are getting into some interesting stuff, which is what I was aiming for.  3/5 of my courses are philosophy, so it's fun for me to post problems we discuss in class to see what others think of them

Just because humans invented the WORD sound, doesn't mean humans invented the sound itself. If sound was called kwyzaggradticfuarckticunt it would still be the same thing.

Quote from: iago on September 16, 2003, 04:35 PM
If I think that I can't think, that's a contradiction.  Thinking is the basis of existance.

I don't see that being true. Your thinking could be fake. Your ability to think could be an illusion.

The description of sound is a bunch of wave lengths or whatever it was I posted, go read it.

QuoteWe did invent sound without humans the term "sound" would not exist you are looking at it too scientifically.

Sound is a name we gave to something, like a variable. Without humans, it would just be a bunch of wavelengths, without a name and we would address it as "wavelengths" or something along those lines. Everything we do or know is based on us, so to say that "it's just a word, it doens't mean anything 'in reality'" is absurd.

IF we hadn't named them, it would be just collections of wavelengths.  And if there were no humans to sense them, it wouldn't be sound, it would just be compressed air.

And I'll respond to Adron's point tomorrow, when I'm more coherant

In eliminating everything we cannot be sure about, prehaps one day we will find something we can be certain of so taking things apart one by one though seemingly a futile action could be more helpful than you may think.

Sound is set in time, a man made concept, sound is produced by waves, the theory based upon a man made concept. I am not arguing that it definatly does not exist because to do so would be conridicting my own statement that everything is uncertain i am just saying that it possibly may not.  

j0k3r you seem to be making too many assumptions, you assume sound is based upon waves, you assume we turn it into "sound". In a world where we truely know nothing as anything is possible you cannot asumme any base facts or theories. Though this is difficult to stop, we assume so many things in life, who is to say the floor will support you next time you step on it? yet we all confidently walk around.

In reference to  "If I think that I can't think, that's a contradiction.  Thinking is the basis of existance" i heard an intresting (not that it is my belief) comment on tv a few days ago "Many people believe they think yet all they do is rearrange their preconceptions"

iago you are working on the basis that what you are doing is really thinking. Yes saying if i think i can't think makes a contradiction, but what if you say. *No word for it yet*ing that i can't think is a contridiction.. then the statement would be wrong.  

"Many people believe they think yet all they do is rearrange their preconceptions"


I've heard that before, but I honestly forget who said it originally.  Anyway, when I was 2, I couldn't reason about anything outside my house, yet now I can do calculus and stuff like that.  That would imply that I can learn.

Now, what about inventions?  I can learn stuff, but what about when I combine what I learn into new thoughts?  It's true that that's a part of thinking, but I wouldn't call things I learn preconceptions.

Quote from: Shadowrage on September 16, 2003, 06:10 PM
j0k3r you seem to be making too many assumptions, you assume sound is based upon waves, you assume we turn it into "sound". In a world where we truely know nothing as anything is possible you cannot asumme any base facts or theories. Though this is difficult to stop, we assume so many things in life, who is to say the floor will support you next time you step on it? yet we all confidently walk around.

In eliminating everything we cannot be sure about, prehaps one day we will find something we can be certain of so taking things apart one by one though seemingly a futile action could be more helpful than you may think.

Yes, let's take apart the world, deconstruct everything, destroy all technology and start over, starting with philosophy first. If this happened we would never get anywhere.

QuoteSound is set in time, a man made concept, sound is produced by waves, the theory based upon a man made concept. I am not arguing that it definatly does not exist because to do so would be conridicting my own statement that everything is uncertain i am just saying that it possibly may not.

Time was not created by man, whether we were here or not there would still be time, it would still pass. We simply discovered a method of measuring it so we could further our understanding of it. If there was no such thing as 'time' as you speak, there would be nothing, because nothing could have happened. One of the most popular things in the world is based on our measurement of time -- music -- and to say that it is a thoery and can not be proven is proposturus, it is all around us.

At any rate you need get your head out of hotbox you've created, life is real, we cannot go to another universe where 'time doesn't exist' and 'things are created around you for your personal enjoyment'.

J0k3r there really seems little point in continuing to try and argue certain points with you as seemingly you are able to misunderstand everything i say.

I will leave you to your world of facts, solid evidence, and more importantly basic securties.


"Time was not created by man, whether we were here or not there would still be time"

Time is CLEARLY a man made concept how do you know time passes the same way for a fox? How do you know plants expriance time in the same way. Our theory is OUR preception of time we cannot be sure its everything else's. We created time as WE know it. We CANNOT and will NEVER know if time is really the way we think it is. Please stop arguing in the face of clear facts. The only thing we can ever be certain of is that we will never be certain of anything.. or can we ?

Quote from: iago on September 16, 2003, 07:10 PM
Now, what about inventions?  I can learn stuff, but what about when I combine what I learn into new thoughts?  It's true that that's a part of thinking, but I wouldn't call things I learn preconceptions.

It may seem to you like you learn stuff, but perhaps it's just like it might seem to a plant that it is "learning" to pick up sun better when in reality the summer is coming, and then suddenly it's getting old and forgetting about picking up sun when in reality winter's coming.

Time itself is either an abstact idea, or an actual thing, again depending on the definition of time. If you think of time as hours, minutes and seconds, no they technically are not real. If this time didn't exist, the world would still orbit the sun, and still spin. Still creating night and day. So if you think of it as in days and years, yes time does exist.

Edit: Ouch, noticing iago's post on the next page, I guess I was still thinking of the human interpretation of time.