one question about objective reality you'd want answered
- Thread starter sonak
- Start date
Foreseeing the Cubs taking the World Series may be more probable than finding intelligent life in the universe. But, it is the Cubs, so...
Are you intentionally missing the point?
Let's pretend there is evidence, and it has you completely convinced. The OP wants to know what you want to find out.
You get to know one thing, and you have all the evidence that you need to back it up. What is that thing?
Wow...no need to be nasty. I intended that as a lighthearted post.
What use would the knowledge of a metaphysical reality be worth. As Spock said to McCoy, without a common frame of reference the conversation would be meaningless.Wow...no need to be nasty. I intended that as a lighthearted post.
What is the purpose of my life? Not life in general, but MY life.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85pJXaiXOBU[/yt]
It's good for fantasies, I think.What use would the knowledge of a metaphysical reality be worth. As Spock said to McCoy, without a common frame of reference the conversation would be meaningless.Wow...no need to be nasty. I intended that as a lighthearted post.
I finally thought of my questions, neither of them are knowable today, but I don't think any of the OP's sample questions are knowable today either. My first question is: What the origin of life? I especially want to know about the accuracy of the theory that RNA and DNA were unique life origin events that merged in symbiosis early on in evolutionary history.
I'd also like to be able to understand consciousness. I think that all the best evidence points to it being an emergent property, but I'd really like to understand how it works.
It's good for fantasies, I think.What use would the knowledge of a metaphysical reality be worth. As Spock said to McCoy, without a common frame of reference the conversation would be meaningless.Wow...no need to be nasty. I intended that as a lighthearted post.
I finally thought of my questions, neither of them are knowable today, but I don't think any of the OP's sample questions are knowable today either. My first question is: What the origin of life? I especially want to know about the accuracy of the theory that RNA and DNA were unique life origin events that merged in symbiosis early on in evolutionary history.
I'd also like to be able to understand consciousness. I think that all the best evidence points to it being an emergent property, but I'd really like to understand how it works.
Those are two great questions.
^I think so!
BTW, sonak, this is a really cool idea for a thread! I hope there are more serious answers! (Not that I'm against silly answers.)
BTW, sonak, this is a really cool idea for a thread! I hope there are more serious answers! (Not that I'm against silly answers.)
^I find great comfort in there being absolutely no meaning or purpose to life.
^ I'm glad you do, but I wouldn't find that comforting at all.
It's good for fantasies, I think.What use would the knowledge of a metaphysical reality be worth. As Spock said to McCoy, without a common frame of reference the conversation would be meaningless.Wow...no need to be nasty. I intended that as a lighthearted post.
I finally thought of my questions, neither of them are knowable today, but I don't think any of the OP's sample questions are knowable today either. My first question is: What the origin of life? I especially want to know about the accuracy of the theory that RNA and DNA were unique life origin events that merged in symbiosis early on in evolutionary history.
I'd also like to be able to understand consciousness. I think that all the best evidence points to it being an emergent property, but I'd really like to understand how it works.
thanks, and your questions are the kinds of ones I was looking for. I started this thread because it's an idea/thought experiment I've considered for a while.
Since I think that the answers to my sample questions about God and the afterlife are likely "no" and "no," my question would likely be something like the "is there intelligent life on other planets?" one.
Or maybe "is Human immortality possible?"
Now that I think about the thread topic, I think there's an episode of the cartoon "the tick" where he gets to ask one question, and he just asks "how ya doin?" and gets a big thumbs up.
Whatever you're buying.
I just think the opposite is so depressing. That there is no great meaning or higher purpose means that we can make our own meaning and purpose. That life is not fair and things don't happen for any reason other than chance means that we don't need to waste our time seeking meaning where there is none and answers where there are none; we can just accept life as it comes and make the best of it. We are free to enjoy what is beautiful and good about life, and we are free to work to change what is evil rather than just vainly questioning why it is so.
I always think of a friend of mine who had an ectopic pregnancy: She went to the hospital one day with a fever, and came out a week later with one of her ovaries and both her tubes gone. She will never have children. She kept asking me what she'd done to deserve it, and while I tried my best to comfort her, on the inside I raged at whoever taught her that the human body is anything more than the result of millions of years of evolution, that for all it's wonder it is in some ways horribly and obviously flawed, and sometimes things just go wrong. I've had so many friends who were raised to believe there is meaning to life and that everything happens for a reason and all that seems to bring them is misery.
I'm perhaps the most optimistic (perhaps unduly) about this one. I have a framed copy of the Drake Equation above my desk at work! It actually ties into my curiosity about the origin of life on earth and the DNA/RNA theory I mentioned. If they were two distinct life origin events that merged in symbiosis, then that would mean that life happened at least twice just on this planet. It sure would add some oomph the the equation! I don't even need intelligent life, really. I'd be happy with some weird extremophiles on Mars.
I think it might be if we can create inorganic brains and "download" consciousness. That, of course, goes back to the whole nature of consciousness question though, and to the idea of P-zombies. All of my reason says to me that an artificial intelligence that functions exactly like a biological brain, that is to say, a computer-based brain simulation -- something which actually is feasible in the not too distant future -- would be conscious: this, presuming of course that consciousness is an emergent property. But as much as I am loathe to evoke solipsism, the only way I know anyone else is conscious is because I know I am conscious and they say they are too...if the computer says it is conscious, is that just because it's been programmed to or because it is? Is there even a difference? My brain says no...but feels weird about that conclusion!
Being told whether or not something is true is not the same thing as having it proved for you. If you don't prove it, there's always an element of doubt.
So, I make the assumption that any one of those would be proved upon selection. Given that, I'd immediately rule out a few of them.
is there intelligent life on other planets?
We are too far away from any intelligent life to ever meet it face to face, let alone communicate remotely. We can safely assume that we are NOT unique, that sentient life has, does, and will exist elsewhere in the universe. Given the sheer number of celestial bodies and planets that could support life, we are definitely not the only sentient life in the universe. How would you prove this? Would I be shown a primitive humanoid tribe eating around a campfire on some planet somewhere else in the galaxy? Or perhaps a long distance space faring species traveling in some amazing vessel far beyond our technology? I'd be pretty disappointed to see the ape folks, but hugely impressed to see the space travelers... and yet, also extremely disappointed knowing we'd never meet them. So, this isn't a useful question for me to ask.
is there an afterlife?
Well, this is quite possibly a wasted question, because if there is no afterlife you've not improved your outcome at all. And you can bet that if there isn't, then there isn't a God either. I wouldn't bother asking it.
is there a God?
This is the heavy duty lottery question with a 50/50 chance of "winning." If there is a God, the proof would be a divine personal visit. And that would be a major life changing event. Also, I'd assume you'd get a chance to chat as part of the verification... and then of course the next logical question would be "Of all the religious writings that have been crafted, which one do you truly sanction, Lord?" And if there isn't? Well... I sure hope there isn't an afterlife either.
is time travel possible?
This is a wasted question because we all know that time travel *IS* possible. We know from the way astrophysics works that you could time travel forward by positioning yourself close to a black hole. I suspect you meant "Is time travel into the past possible?" And you know what? I don't want to know.
So for me, I'd ask the God question.
So, I make the assumption that any one of those would be proved upon selection. Given that, I'd immediately rule out a few of them.
is there intelligent life on other planets?
We are too far away from any intelligent life to ever meet it face to face, let alone communicate remotely. We can safely assume that we are NOT unique, that sentient life has, does, and will exist elsewhere in the universe. Given the sheer number of celestial bodies and planets that could support life, we are definitely not the only sentient life in the universe. How would you prove this? Would I be shown a primitive humanoid tribe eating around a campfire on some planet somewhere else in the galaxy? Or perhaps a long distance space faring species traveling in some amazing vessel far beyond our technology? I'd be pretty disappointed to see the ape folks, but hugely impressed to see the space travelers... and yet, also extremely disappointed knowing we'd never meet them. So, this isn't a useful question for me to ask.
is there an afterlife?
Well, this is quite possibly a wasted question, because if there is no afterlife you've not improved your outcome at all. And you can bet that if there isn't, then there isn't a God either. I wouldn't bother asking it.
is there a God?
This is the heavy duty lottery question with a 50/50 chance of "winning." If there is a God, the proof would be a divine personal visit. And that would be a major life changing event. Also, I'd assume you'd get a chance to chat as part of the verification... and then of course the next logical question would be "Of all the religious writings that have been crafted, which one do you truly sanction, Lord?" And if there isn't? Well... I sure hope there isn't an afterlife either.
is time travel possible?
This is a wasted question because we all know that time travel *IS* possible. We know from the way astrophysics works that you could time travel forward by positioning yourself close to a black hole. I suspect you meant "Is time travel into the past possible?" And you know what? I don't want to know.
So for me, I'd ask the God question.
Last edited:
^I do believe the debate among physicists about the possibility of time travel is more contentious and complicated than you have put it. And the question of life in the universe is also more complicated: there are other factors to be considered aside from habitable worlds. Until we have more than than the single data point available now, there is no way to judge the probability of life anywhere else in the universe, intelligent or otherwise.
I am actually least interested in the god question -- to me it just seems as ridiculous and banal as asking if there are really fairies. That's not meant as an anti-religious statement, it's just how I've always felt about the question, ever since I can remember.
I am actually least interested in the god question -- to me it just seems as ridiculous and banal as asking if there are really fairies. That's not meant as an anti-religious statement, it's just how I've always felt about the question, ever since I can remember.
