Solipsism Syndrome

Neapolitan · 03-22-2010, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

A soul can't be seen, has never been measured,...

That is true. I'm only guessing, to the ancient philosophers, things could be divided as seen and unseen, abstract and concrete, tangible and intangible, whatever nomenclature they used. The "body" is something tangilbe, you can use your five senses to detect it, but "soul" is something that can not be detected by the five senses. [I won't go into detail about the soul.] But there is a lot in science that has yet to be seen yet can be infered. What other abstract ideas would you say also need scientific approval for there existence? If you are going to approach it in a scientific way I wouldn't dismiss it just on the grounds it can be seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

we don't know of anything that could create souls and if souls are true, we don't know anything about how they behave - like are they eternal? Are they somehow recycled? Do they occupy more than one body throughout their existence? Do they go to a heaven or hell?

Those questions are answers by...

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

The point is not they're a figment of people's imagination, although it could be. It's that discussing aggressively concepts which we can't prove exist outside fantasy is kind of futile.

strawmanning, I was discussing things passively

Zaqarbal · 03-23-2010, 12:24 AM

I'm not into Philosophy, but as far as I know, the idea that "life is a dream" is very old. I remember, at least, two great literary references: Pedro Calderón de la Barca and Edgar Allan Poe.

All of we Hispanophones with a high-school degree know the classic Life is a Dream (Calderón, 1635). And specially Segismundo's soliloquy (Act II), which some of us have even memorized:

We live, while we see the sun,
Where life and dreams are as one;
And living has taught me this,
Man dreams the life that is his,
Until his living is done.
The king dreams he is king, and he lives
In the deceit of a king,
Commanding and governing;
And all the praise he receives
Is written in wind, and leaves
A little dust on the way
When death ends all with a breath.
Where then is the gain of a throne,
That shall perish and not be known
In the other dream that is death?
Dreams the rich man of riches and fears,
The fears that his riches breed;
The poor man dreams of his need,
And all his sorrows and tears;
Dreams he that prospers with years,
Dreams he that feigns and foregoes,
Dreams he that rails on his foes;
And in all the world, I see,
Man dreams whatever he be,
And his own dream no man knows.
And I too dream and behold,
I dream I am bound with chains,
And I dreamed that these present pains
Were fortunate ways of old.
What is life? a tale that is told;
What is life? a frenzy extreme,
A shadow of things that seem;
And the greatest good is but small,
That all life is a dream to all,
And that dreams themselves are a dream.

(Symons' translation)

Obviously, rhyme has been "lost in translation", but I think the meaning remains (anyway, you can listen to the original here).

Regarding Poe, he wrote the poem entitled A Dream Within a Dream in 1849:

Take this kiss upon the brow!
And, in parting from you now,
Thus much let me avow—
You are not wrong, who deem
That my days have been a dream;
Yet if hope has flown away
In a night, or in a day,
In a vision, or in none,
Is it therefore the less gone?
All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream.

I stand amid the roar
Of a surf-tormented shore,
And I hold within my hand
Grains of the golden sand—
How few! yet how they creep
Through my fingers to the deep,
While I weep—while I weep!
O God! can I not grasp
Them with a tighter clasp?
O God! can I not save
One from the pitiless wave?
Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?

Guybrush · 03-23-2010, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

That is true. I'm only guessing, to the ancient philosophers, things could be divided as seen and unseen, abstract and concrete, tangible and intangible, whatever nomenclature they used. The "body" is something tangilbe, you can use your five senses to detect it, but "soul" is something that can not be detected by the five senses. [I won't go into detail about the soul.] But there is a lot in science that has yet to be seen yet can be infered. What other abstract ideas would you say also need scientific approval for there existence? If you are going to approach it in a scientific way I wouldn't dismiss it just on the grounds it can be seen.

Some things in science might be hard to see, but I wouldn't say there's much in science that can't be measured. Even though the scientists can't see the particles they bang together in accelerators themselves, they are detected by the instruments. Things in science which have not yet been measured are really treated very much like hypotheses in my experience which basically means people tend to be careful treating them as truths.

According to the Occam's razor principle which is popular in science, the simplest explanation is the best. The simplest explanation is the one which requires you to do the least amount of new assumptions about the universe we live in. The assumption we do not have souls does not lead to any troublesome assumptions in science - it is pretty consistent with what we know so far. The assumption that souls do exist will lead to a lot of new assumptions and so is the unfavourable option. What I mean is that if there's no way to prove souls' existence, you should be critical and sceptical in your thinking around the subject if you want to minimize the chance of you believing in something which is wrong.

I don't believe in things which have no energy and no mass and can't possibly be measured in any way. Even abstract concepts like thoughts are made from something. If souls really do exist, it should be possible to measure one. The same goes for God!

cardboard adolescent · 03-23-2010, 01:13 PM

you don't believe in things that have no energy and no mass? does that mean you don't believe in space-time? maybe the soul is just another way of understanding space-time, eh?

Barnard17 · 03-23-2010, 01:36 PM

Asinine post of the day goes to cardboard.

duga · 03-23-2010, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnard17

Asinine post of the day goes to cardboard.

Why? He is right...there are plenty of concepts with no mass, etc. that physicists all over the world consider true for the sake of other theories and equations.

Barnard17 · 03-23-2010, 09:34 PM

Because tore's post was evidently not designed to negate the existence of time. Cardboard's post was nothing more than petty semantics.

duga · 03-23-2010, 09:44 PM

I agree it was picking on the argument in an arrogant way, but he makes a good point...a lot of things that humans by nature believe in can not be measured in any hard quantifiable way.

P A N · 03-23-2010, 10:34 PM

i think cardboard is referring to the fact that when matter is broken down to its smallest components there is nothing there to account for weight. the higgs field or the 'ether' or the akashic field or any other name for it are possible explanations for the phenomenon, but there is only math to suggest that this might be the case. a giant particle accelerator has recently been built in order to help the process of accounting for mass along which upon the first firing malfunctioned.

interesting addition to the thread though, cardboard.

Neapolitan · 03-23-2010, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnard17

Because tore's post was evidently not designed to negate the existence of time. Cardboard's post was nothing more than petty semantics.

No, it wasn't so much as semantics as it was a strawman arguement. The petty aurguement of semantics in the last couple of post was over my use of the word "soul."

03-23-2010, 12:24 AM	#82 (permalink)
Zaqarbal Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 824	I'm not into Philosophy, but as far as I know, the idea that "life is a dream" is very old. I remember, at least, two great literary references: Pedro Calderón de la Barca and Edgar Allan Poe. All of we Hispanophones with a high-school degree know the classic *Life is a Dream* (Calderón, 1635). And specially Segismundo's soliloquy (Act II), which some of us have even memorized: We live, while we see the sun, Where life and dreams are as one; And living has taught me this, Man dreams the life that is his, Until his living is done. The king dreams he is king, and he lives In the deceit of a king, Commanding and governing; And all the praise he receives Is written in wind, and leaves A little dust on the way When death ends all with a breath. Where then is the gain of a throne, That shall perish and not be known In the other dream that is death? Dreams the rich man of riches and fears, The fears that his riches breed; The poor man dreams of his need, And all his sorrows and tears; Dreams he that prospers with years, Dreams he that feigns and foregoes, Dreams he that rails on his foes; And in all the world, I see, Man dreams whatever he be, And his own dream no man knows. And I too dream and behold, I dream I am bound with chains, And I dreamed that these present pains Were fortunate ways of old. What is life? a tale that is told; What is life? a frenzy extreme, A shadow of things that seem; And the greatest good is but small, That all life is a dream to all, And that dreams themselves are a dream. (Symons' translation) Obviously, rhyme has been "lost in translation", but I think the meaning remains (anyway, you can listen to the original here). Regarding Poe, he wrote the poem entitled *A Dream Within a Dream* in 1849: Take this kiss upon the brow! And, in parting from you now, Thus much let me avow— You are not wrong, who deem That my days have been a dream; Yet if hope has flown away In a night, or in a day, In a vision, or in none, Is it therefore the less gone? All that we see or seem Is but a dream within a dream. I stand amid the roar Of a surf-tormented shore, And I hold within my hand Grains of the golden sand— How few! yet how they creep Through my fingers to the deep, While I weep—while I weep! O God! can I not grasp Them with a tighter clasp? O God! can I not save One from the pitiless wave? Is all that we see or seem But a dream within a dream? __________________ "Lullabies for adults / crossed by the years / carry the flower of disappointment / tattooed in their gloomy melodies."

03-23-2010, 01:36 PM	#85 (permalink)
Barnard17 My home? Discabled, Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 204	Asinine post of the day goes to cardboard. __________________ Vita brevis, Occasio praeceps

03-23-2010, 09:34 PM	#87 (permalink)
Barnard17 My home? Discabled, Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 204	Because tore's post was evidently not designed to negate the existence of time. Cardboard's post was nothing more than petty semantics. __________________ Vita brevis, Occasio praeceps

03-23-2010, 09:44 PM	#88 (permalink)
duga MB quadrant's JM Vincent Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 3,762	I agree it was picking on the argument in an arrogant way, but he makes a good point...a lot of things that humans by nature believe in can not be measured in any hard quantifiable way. __________________ Confusion will be my epitaph...

03-23-2010, 01:13 PM	#84 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,503	you don't believe in things that have no energy and no mass? does that mean you don't believe in space-time? maybe the soul is just another way of understanding space-time, eh?

03-23-2010, 10:34 PM	#89 (permalink)
P A N DO LIKE YOU. Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 629	i think cardboard is referring to the fact that when matter is broken down to its smallest components there is nothing there to account for weight. the higgs field or the 'ether' or the akashic field or any other name for it are possible explanations for the phenomenon, but there is only math to suggest that this might be the case. a giant particle accelerator has recently been built in order to help the process of accounting for mass along which upon the first firing malfunctioned. interesting addition to the thread though, cardboard.