Our Minds Our Existance

To all:
First thing I like to do is to correct the spelling of ``existence.`` ``Existance`` is so common here one whould think it is a word!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Secondly, I am a year and a half late! But nevertheless, I would put in my view!! I was in India at the time it was last discussed!!!

I think most of the confusion here is due to the non-recognition of how knowledge develops among humans. Let me summarize this in a separate paragraph for understandability!!

Humans encounter an event/phenomenon and they try to make sense on the basis of what they have already learnt in the past from OTHER HUMANS. If the event fits then nothing to worry about. If it does not, then they dream up a story to fit it. The story is told to other humans. If the story teller is a big boss people start believing it - the story. Then other humans pick it up and it becomes common lore to be used many times later. ALL RELIGIONS ARE SUCH STORIES. They are believed in because that allows food on many a table. Besides they are useful tools to get ordinary humans to fight wars with which they have nothing to do. The big bosses of the society exploit them (the people) to be canon fodder for the bosses` aggrandizement and enrichment.

As for what we take with us after death, the answer is: ``nothing.`` The DNA fueling us disintegrates and the atoms of our body are dispersed in soil and air. Only the dead person`s memory is left in his/her acquaintances to be similarly dispersed on their own DNA`s disintegrations.

THAT IS THE END OF THE STORY.

I find it hard to say that the rest of the animal kingdom lack intellect. Only in our eyes! Their mental capacity is on a much smaller scale there fore they are limited to what can be comprehended and thought. I use ants for an example, they rely more on instinct and go about their day without relising that we even exist, all because they just dont have the mental capacity to understand outside their square. Now think of the bigger picture not maybe just our planet but our universe, why can there be a higher level existance living along side us or near by, but we just lack the mental capacity to see and understand that they even exist, such as us along side the ants! On the next level of existance, consciousness may not require a body and material things they just exist!

# 3 - Is it so important to belong to a certain group or school of thought? I would go for the Open Minded School of thought, and not have any limitations or restrictions on my thought process.....

#5 - Never went to a philosophy class, or read any philosphy books....do want to pick one though, out of curiosity. You might want to call these as coffee table discussions. Whatever anyone would like to name them.

You wrote `` Is it not true that all sources of information, originates form a higher intellect?``
Answer: If you look up the word `intellect` in the dictionary, it describes it as ``the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination``. It is a positive term, and therefore biased. However, the power of our minds to judge and comprehend; the thinking faculty; the understanding, all play a vital role in forming new knowledgebase, or rather creating new knowledgebase.

You wrote: ``Is it not true, that everything you know, everything you get taught in science, maths, et al, is based on past principles that you advance?``
Answer: I would like to say `yes` to it. I`m sure everyone is aware of the `Theory of Relativity` which, to this day, is being debated by the scientists in the light of quantum mechanics and further down, through the `String Theory`. In the grand scheme of things, we may only be discovering whats really out there already. If this line of thought is taken as a foundation for the argument, then yes, you are right. However, these are not `past principles`....these are the unknown absolutes that surround us, and yet we are oblivious to them, and finding out about them, as we connect the dots.

You wrote: ``Descartes, french philosopher/mathematician coined this famous term, which in essence follows that everything you know, you experience via your 5 senses, is knowledge that is not absolute - and therefore relative to each other - and therefore doubt exists - and therefore, we can never be really sure that anything really exists. ``
Answer: I would like to add further to this argument. How many dimensions are we aware of? We live in a three dimensional world, as we percieve. But, scientists have been able to prove mathematically, that there exists 29 dimensions. Our mind is `designed` to percieve only three dimensions. What about all other dimensions? If a scientist is heard talking about an unseen existance in other dimensions, that we can not relate with, then this certainly is a deviation from the common perception that scientists do not believe in the unseen........could the world of `Djinns` be a simple proof of existance of other dimensions? Quran talks about Djinns that exist in a parrallel dimension, yet neither they, nor we can relate with them. There are few who claim to have made contact with them, and we call them `crazy`.....:-) So this also means that the physical objects percieved and felt in other dimensions, may not only be invisible to us, but also unfelt......sounds bizzarre! but the concept is out there. Boils down to the absolutes. We may never know what are the absolutes and may only depend on the ability of mind that is limited, to give us some logic or sense to the structure of our, or for that matter, everythings, existance. As much as scientists are calling the `String Theory` as a theory of `Everything`, it is still long way off from defining the absolutes....by the way, there are 5 String Theories that are currently describing the existential model.

So, to conclude, whatever we have proved so far, is by using our intellect, and therefore, intellect, is a condition by virtue of which we determine our ability to percieve and understand whatever surrounds us. And as far as teaching goes? I believe in the fact that a true teacher would not like you to memorize the beliefs and concepts that he has learned or perceived. But rather train you to think and percieve without any limits or bounds. That is why the kings and the siblings of the nobles in the times starting from egyptians, to the roman kings, likes of the Alexander the Great, were taught by philosophers.

#6. Existance of God is another absolute, that I would like to believe in simply by looking at the very structure and formation starting from the heavenly bodies down to the very basic element `String` defined through the modern `String Theory`. The order that we see in these structures, is enough for me to believe that there exists a power above and beyond our simple perceptions and understandings.

#8. Yes, it might have been a bad analogy. The point I wanted to make was, if mind exists with a handicapped body, we as an individual exist, if only body exists with no mind, we are no more.

#9. Yes, I too believe that intellect differentiates us from animals. However, I may have difficulty in percieving intellect as a `thing`. In my view, it is a faculty that exists alongside our senses and may be dependent upon increased activity in certain part of our brain, just like so many other senses are dependent upon the brain activity in relative parts of the brain.

#1,2,7,10. I can only say that I respect your opinion and also feel glad that you have a strong faith and thus have found your peace. I would like to presume, though, that such peace that faith brings in our hearts should only allow us to be more sharing, forgiving, and helpful towards others.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Rizwan (#6) -- the proof I had written out is dependent on the ideal that the intellect of man can be defined as a `thing`, i.e. not just an expansion of instinct. You either believe that we have intellect, or you dont. In this sense, because I first thought that the argument rested on this assumption, that this proof was deemed incomplete -- it required an assumption, a belief.

I have been wrestling with this point... and recently realised that for all intents and purposes, intellect /is/ a characteristic, special and unique only to humans -- because the rest of the animal kingdom does not have it. It is what seperates us from animals, it is this concept of intellect -- this tool we have at our disposal of viewing the world analytically, and using logic thereafter to reap its rewards.
Now that this point is no longer debatable, because it is a truth; the proof (below) is, I believe, free from all assumptions.

We have intellect. Animals do not. It is intellect which enables us to have the power we do, it is intellect which enforces logic over instinct and helps us predict, evaluate, imitate. It is intellect which enables us to control our own evolution; to amplify our power through technology. We have this power; animals do not. It is real.
Our only provable asset is our own minds. With this comes intellect.
Everything you are taught, you understand because you build it on past principles of logic.
Information is derived from a higher intellect.
Since the only thing we can prove is our use of logic, one must ask how and where did we gain the first `building blocks of logic` to comprehend this in the first place (as no other animal does so). There must be an initial source of information enabling us to herald intellect in the first place; in order for us to comprehend our own intellect.
This must have came from a higher intellect/higher power.

As you can see, this proof uses philosophy, rather than physical science. And in doing so, it is accessable to anyone, given time and a great deal of thought. With it being regarded as an `indirect` proof? I can only say that this lies in the mind of the reader... yet I can`t see any holes in it :¬,

Peace.

Naved:
In case the point was altogether too subtle...
Take away Stephen Hawking`s body (like, bury it or something!) and then see how productive his mind is!
Sheeesh! I`ve heard some weak arguments for a body-independent minds, but this one does take the cake!! I`d have to be out of my mind to accept this. Is this your whole point? :-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dr_Riq, You proved the existance of God, indirectly, in ohter words this is not an absoulute proof.

Is it possible to prove the existance of God, with absolute certainity?

or is it like this, maximum one can do, it to prove that there is a possibility of existance of God.

Its nice to see someone finding a use for their philosophy classes... :¬,
I have also been thinking on the subject, and after a summer of existentialism and quarrels with classmates and my physics teacher, thereby come to the following conclusion:

If you believe that the mind is a seperate entity than the brain, that the two are not one, but two different concepts, then you will ultimately believe in God.

This is arrived as follows.

1) Is it not true that all sources of information, originates form a higher intellect? This post Im writing, to the article you wrote, does not come from a random occurance of letters being scrambled up and inevitably joining together to form words and prose... they are placed purposefully, and such hold meaning (information), and as such this information did not come automatically, a higher intellect actually thought of such ideas and recorded the information in this form... ?

2) Is it not true, that everything you know, everything you get taught in science, maths, et al, is based on past principles that you advance? That everything new you learn, every new concept, is based on certain `fundamental building blocks of logic`, (for example, and example only, such as attraction, repulsion, creation and destruction...)?

3) And last, but not least, ``Cogito Ergo Sum``, I think, Therefore I Am.
For those of you unfamiliar to this principle, wear your seatbelts. Especially if you do not understand concepts behind that oh-so-great film, The Matrix.
Descartes, french philosopher/mathematician coined this famous term, which in essence follows that everything you know, you experience via your 5 senses, is knowledge that is not absolute - and therefore relative to each other - and therefore doubt exists - and therefore, we can never be really sure that anything really exists.
Mad, but here`s an example you can try next time you`re at a picnic, on a fine summer`s day, eating some meal on a plate, on some grass, or a mat if you prefer.
To you, the plate at which your food rests is a plate. But to an ant, or some equally small creature, it is a source of shade, or refuge from ant-eating animals, or a landmark to Antopia. The point is, what you call a plate, really has different functions to whatever you are measuring it to. Its meaning, its /truth/ is relative to what you`re measuring it against. And thus, who is right? Is it a plate? A frizbee? Source of shade? Any of these, or none of these are right. Doubt exists. What is it really? We cannot say for sure; thus we must discard it, and reality along with it, as flawed, and unprovable (my red isn`t your red, etc).
So what _does_ exist then? Well, the only thing we really, for sure can prove exists, is the fact that we are thinking about this concept in the first place. We doubt, therefore our doubt must exist. Our doubt exists, therefore we exist.
Voila!

Summary-
1) Information comes from a source of higher intellect, no?
2) Everything we know is based on something we have learned before, no?
3) The only thing we can prove is our own existence, and nothing else, no?

Taking these three conecepts at hand, and mixing them into one frenzied cocktail, and thus we have as follows!

WE cannot prove anything but our own intellect! (point 3)
But our intellect, our comprehension of logic, our ability ot make informed decisions about the world around us, has to be based on something we were `taught` beforehand!
Id est, we were taught our intellect! (point 2)
Thus, if we have only ourselves, and our intellect to prove, we must question where we achieved the information to deal with even this! (point 1)...

Answer: A higher power!

... who can this be? None other than the Allmighty!

Peace out

Naved:
This is as far as I could read (read ``as much as I could take``) :
``Coming back to the basic configuration of our `self`. What is dependent on what? Can we be functional without a body? yes, maybe. And when I say that, I think of those people who are parapelegic ( I hope I got the spellings right!) . They are very much alive and thinking inside their disfunctional body. Dr. Stevens has proved that, he could still achieve a Nobel Prize, while on a support system for his body. I would take this as a proof enough that Mind precedes body. On ther contrary, a body without mind, is almost like live entity, but with no consicous existance. ``

!!!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

my dear Naved -- so u r an Existantialist not an Existentialist........:-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts