If there were no emotions

[Peregrine]

You are wrong, Peregrin. Completly wrong. As most human beings are. Imanuel Kant was the most genious mind of his generation and there are few until today who came to such a genious mind until this day (Einstein and Hawkins are some of those few). I don't think that you can surpass his ingeniousness. Neither can I.

 

I already have. Kant can't even understand a basic concept like the existence of the reality we observe. I can.

 

That you say that Kant is an idiot proves to me that you are not able to understand the ingeniousness of what Kant has discovered. So, that you can understand, I prove to you step by step and logically, that Kant is right and will be right. Until today his theory was never disproven. And if you look closer at it, you will agree with me.

 

I understand it perfeclty. It's a useless abstract philosophical concept that has no connection to reality. It's not ingenious at all.

 

When you truly think that you can learn anything about reality, then you are as blind as most human beings. Everything you do experience goes through the filter of your senses and your mind. We look at the world from our perspective, not vice versa. Everything we do experience is filtered by our way of thinking.

 

Ok, I agree. Everything we observe is seen through the filter of our own minds. But we are still observing the same objective reality. Reality exists as it does regardless of how we choose to see it.

 

Then this information reaches our minds. We begin to think in certain patterns. We divide and define our world in space and time, abstract things which only exist inside our minds. We can't know if such a thing like space or time does exist, ever existed or ever will exist. We only assume it, because we are forced to think in certain patterns with our limited minds.

 

I know reality exists. I prove this every moment of my existence.

 

Think carefully. Is what your senses tell you, really reality? No it isn't. There are so many things that we can't experience through our senses. So our senses do not tell us anything about how reality is like. They are only showing a certain appearances of reality. But appearances are never reality itself. Never.

 

List these things that our senses can not observe.

 

Next we begin to connect certain appearances we experience. We draw conclusions of things that do not really exist. One of these ways of thinking is causality. Who tells that such a thing as causality really exists? We see a fire. We see a paper. The fire touches the paper. The paper is consumed by the flames. Ash is left. We draw the conclusion that the paper has the ability to burn. This is pure assumption. Nothing tells us that it lies in the ability of paper to burn.

 

Ugh, this is such a bad argument. If the causality as we see it isn't the explanation, then what is? Until you find an alternate one that fits the evidence better, don't make stupid arguments like this.

 

I do observe reality all the time? What tells me that what I do observe is really reality? Nothing at all! Nothing! Only my limited human mind tells me all the time that what I observe is in fact reality. We are afraid of a certain thing, that is why we are telling ourselves that everything is true and real we experience. We are afraid of this certain thought: Maybe it is all different, maybe nothing does exist the way it does.

 

Fine, as an abstract philosophical thought, reality might not exist. But the odds of that are as close to zero as you can get, and completely irrelevant. Philosophy is absolutely pointless without supporting evidence, and there is exactly zero evidence to suggest we should doubt our reality.

 

Do you listen, Peregrin: We, the tiny little humans, are afraid, because we are so used to how things are. We are afraid of the unpleasant thought that perhaps nothing is true what we think to be true. And there is nothing, really nothing, that proves it otherwise. Only our assumptions and the fact that we are quite pleasant with our present way of thinking keeps us from going crazy.

 

Only our assumptions keep us from wasting our lives on pointless philosophy like this. If you consider every possible alternative, no matter how unreasonable, you'll never get anywhere. So you cut out the ones that are near zero probablility, and this "theory" is one of them.

 

And do you know what: We'll still stay tiny, little, afraid humans until we accept the fact that maybe everything is different than we thought. Kant was a visionary in some way. He showed a new way of thinking, a new way out of our limited minds. We are in fact prisoners of our limited human minds. It is time for us to step out, to put aside everything we thought to be true and real and to explore what lies beyond. We must go deep inside us, then the answer we will never find outside, where there are only the lies we think are the truth. And when we begin to explore what we are really capable of, expand our ways of thinking beyond what we believe now to be reality, we will come nearer to what is in fact the true reality. But sadly, most human beings are quite comfortable in their made up world of lies and assumptions. They will never step away from those lies and will comfortably sit in the dark of the cave (if you remember the cave allegory by Platon), afraid of exploring reality outside our dark cave, which we do think is reality. Our "reality" is only a shadow compared to the real reality. An sadly, a most comfortable shadow world to most people.

 

Then answer this simple question. If reality is not what we think it is, then what is it? Until you define an alternative and provide supporing evidence, your argument is worthless.

 

Wondering. This was the beginning of philosophy. Some philosophers may have forgotten this, most people living on this earth also. Children perhaps know more of the truth than we do. For them, everything is a wonder, everything is still new and they are willing to explore. Sometimes they see clearer what is in fact reality, while our minds and senses are already clouded by this false "reality". I begin to understand why Jesus said "Be like the children". And perhaps there is hope when some people follow this advise.

 

Because they have not learned enough to eliminate the obviously incorrect possibilities. This is not a good thing!

 

I don't know about you, Peregrin, but I have enough of all those lies and assumptions we experience and think ourselves every day. I have enough of sitting in the comfortable dark of the cave. I'm beginning to step out to the light, to reality. At least as far as it is possible with my still limited mind. And I am only beginning to experience the wonders lying outside. Things I can't explain, which I will perhaps never be able to explain. I see them every day, while a lot of people have become blind for them.

 

Tell me them. Tell me exactly what other reality you have found. Give me specific details. Do not post again until you are prepared to do so. All I can see that you are doing is trying to bluff your way through every debate. You have found exactly nothing, and I doubt you even understand the arguments you are quoting.

 

How can we be so arrogant to think that we can truly gain any knowledge, that we in fact possess any knowlegde? How can it be that most people think that everything is explainable? The human race is blind. Blinded by our own lies. Someone must open our eyes again. It is really necessary.

 

Again, if our reality is wrong, what is the truth? The mere fact that another truth could exist does not mean that it does.

[Eltiraaz]

A purely rational person would have no trouble accepting that they do not understand something enough to explain it.

 

Good point. Pergrine has once again, without failure, proven me wrong... :huh:

[Nevermore]

It seems a member and a moderater have gone extremly OT.

 

From "does emotion beget religion" to "can reality be proven"...

 

It seems to me that the emotions in this very thread are getting high and melodramdic (and often times unprovable) opinoins are being phrases out trying to mimic poety or religuse text. On the other hand anger seems to be common among you too, leading to boarderline name calling. Which is goes hand-in-hand with emotion flinging.

 

Stop your bickering about OT topics.

[Peregrine]

Yes, that seems to happen once Darnoc gets involved in a debate...

 

But as much as I hate to justify his posts, he did have a point in there somewhere. If these philosophers (according to him, they don't use emotion in their conclusions) can decide that God exists, emotion is not required for belief in his existence. Therefore religion does not require emotion.

 

But of course that's a flawed point, for two reasons:

 

1) These philosophers are not entirely rational.

 

2) Their arguments are flawed anyway, and do not prove God.

[Nevermore]

*rolls eyes sighing, then speaks sarcasticly* Yes, it's all Darnoc's fault.

 

Peregrine, your reason #2 is not backed up with anything.

 

Learn to debate please.

[Peregrine]

I have explained why I disagree with Darnoc's arguments in my other posts. You may not agree with me, but my views are there. If you can't find them, I'm suprised you're literate enough to post here. Of course it's more likely that you either didn't bother reading them, or that you wanted an excuse to criticize me.

 

 

And it is simple fact. Every single debate he posts in, he makes the same general argument. "We can't be sure of anything." He has admitted that he doesn't argue a side because he believes it, but because he wants to argue.

[Malchik]

Part of the problem is that these are two diametrically opposed styles of discussion. A philosophical debate has a different and in my opinion conflicting purpose to an empirical debate. Philosophy is concerned with discussing what 'might be' given that nothing actually 'is'. An empiricist denies the fundamental tenets of philosophical debate by refusing this assertion. (Or if not refusing it, at least consigning it to irrelevance.)

 

I can argue philosophically but find it unsatisfying. A good philosophical debate I'm sure is excellent for philosophers and I see no reason for criticising the approach but philosophers study the subject, understand the different kinds of philosophy that exist and have existed. As such, true philosophical debates are too esoteric for most people. To those who are not philosophers, they are simply excuses to avoid giving a direct answer. (To a philosopher of course there is no direct answer.)

 

A empiricist will argue from 'factual' information. That a philosopher can say 'but perhaps you are a figment of someone else's dream' is deemed of no relevance. The empiricist goes by what he believes factual and seeks the relevant paradigms for existence within that framework. This gives no scope for philosophical debate.

 

Peregrine and Darnoc are so far removed from each other in debating styles that they are not doing more than arguing an empiric approach against a philosophical one. These are not debates on the subjects themselves but on debating styles. Darnoc knows my view, because I PM'd him on it some time ago. I have nothing against philosophical debates but to raise philosophy in empirical debates is counter-productive. It is one of the reasons why he started the cafe philosophique thread.

 

I will also suggest to Peregrine that if a philosophical debate is taking place, an empirical request for evidence or proof misses the point of the discussion. Such a request is out of place in a philosophical debate. So whoever starts debates should think very carefully what type of response they want. Each religious thread (or one that turns to religion) ends up with the philosophic/empiric clash that gets us nowhere.

 

However much a believer would wish otherwise, there is no proof that will satisfy any empiricist that god exists or ever has existed. Equally, however much an empiricist would wish, there is no proof that god does not exist. The best such a debate can offer is to let those currently undecided see both sides.

[Darnoc]

@Malchik: Yeah, I understand.

 

 

Now I show you my empiric evidence of what I have said, Peregrin (even when I myself don't believe in Empirism).

 

I said you can not trust your senses. You see colors. Colors don't exist outside our minds. Only electromagnetic waves exist, and a certain wavelength becomes green inside our mind (or blue, or red, or yellow...). So already everything you "see" that has to do with colors is an illusion.

 

Not to mention the fact that we cannot see all wavelengths. We are only able to see a small amount of the electricmagnetic waves, we call those wavelengths we can see "visible light".

 

Now at least the form of things is as we experience it, you will probably think. No, it isn't so. We only think something is rectangular, because we see a rectangular object. And we can only see because of an illusion existing inside our minds (colors and light). Now lets say that no one of use has the ability to see things. Lets say we never had any eyes. Now how can you be sure now that this object which you call "rectangular" when you see it is in fact rectangular?

 

The same applies to everything you hear, you smell, you touch, you feel. Everything is an illusion. Everything is just electric signals reaching our minds through nerves. We can't be sure that things do exist as our senses tell us.

 

You said it isn't probable that our world is different than the way we think that we experience it. In such a case you can't use your probability anymore. You say it is more probable that things are as you think they are because you are used to this way they are. Not because the way, how you think it is, is in fact more probable. When you throw a dice, all six numbers are about the same probable to be thrown. So it is with how reality exists. When of those possibilities one is chosen, all possibilities are about the same probable. So it is about the same probable that our reality is how think it is or that everything is just the "Matrix". You can't apply probability to something outside our assumed reality. The laws of probability only exist inside our assumed reality, we made those laws. But they are no longer valid when talking about something which hasn't anything to do with our assumed reality. This is because we do not know how the laws of probability do exist in such a place.

 

Children are smarter (without knowing that they are) than us, because they do not assume things which are perhaps not even existing. For a child it wouldn't be surprising if it saw suddenly humans floating around. But we probably would have a shock. People just do not float around normally and we have become so used to this that we think that it is an absolute fact.

 

I was very serious when I told you that most humans were afraid of thinking the way I think. It is true. Humans like habits and order. They like it when things are as they used to be all the time. Humans don't like change. Or at least not in big amounts. That is our problem. We can not allow that we get used to anything or that we believe something is true, because it can't be proven or disproven at the monent. As long as something isn't proven 100% we must still keep in mind that it might not be true. Perhaps sometime evidence is found which indicates that nothing is true as we thought that it was.

 

Again you would say that is very probable that things are as we know think that they are. And again, you do not say something is more probable because it is in fact more probable, you say it because you are used to this. It is normal to think that something we are used to is more probable. But this doesn't make it true. We only think that it is true, because our knowlegde is limited. We can not know what we will find out in a century or in a millenium. We jugde everything from the knowlegde we posses and at the same time think that our judgment is correct, but it is not. Any jugdement can only be correct when all the facts are known. And until we posses all the facts, we must assume that our jugdement or our way of thinking is not true. Anything else would be lying to ourselves.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Finally, back to the topic. I don't think that a world of humans without emotions would be a good one. For example, without emotions we could come to the conclusion that it would be better for society to extract every knowledge from the old people and afterwards kill them, because society can not bear them anymore. But because we have emotions, this won't happen.

 

The not-existence of emotions doesn't mean that our world will become good. I can come to a reasonable conclusion that war would be better for my present situation. I could come to the reasonable conclusion that killing millions of people would be better for this planet.

 

Yes, a lot of bad things happened because of emotions. But also a lot of good things. What is with love and kindness? Whithout emotions we wouldn't posses those things. Emotions and reason aren't "good" or "bad". They are both. Both can be used to do good things and bad things. I doubt if our world would be a better place without emotions.

[Malchik]

I think you just proved my point, Darnoc. But I'm not going to repeat it.

 

In terms of emotions, if we never had any, actions that seem bad to us now would not necessarily seem bad. Values would be different, so current value judgements could have no meaning. I'm not sure that this would affect a fundamental need to understand our origins. In the absence of ,human minds are inclined to invent. This applies across all sorts of spheres. I do not see an immediate connection between this and emotion. Is inquisitiveness an emotion? If it is born of fear, perhaps it is. But much scientific investigation is based on a desire to understand, not a fear of the unknown. Of course any religion or god invented might be very different. It might not even be recognised as religion by our current society but there could well be something.

 

So my view is that the removal of (or non-existence of) emotion would not affect the development of religion. At the end of the day the purpose of ALL religions is to keep the proles in check and that is not connected to emotion.

[Peregrine]

Look, I have conceded the .00000000001% chance that we are wrong. But you miss one key point: The fact that we might be wrong does not mean that we are. Before you can reject the 99.99999% definite truth, you have to have a reason. So please, post you reasons that our reality isn't correct.

 

And until we posses all the facts, we must assume that our jugdement or our way of thinking is not true. Anything else would be lying to ourselves.

 

WRONG. Until (and if) we have all the facts, we must assume that our judgement might be wrong. Until we have evidence to show that it is wrong, that judgement is fact.

 

 

And finally, the question isn't "do we need emotions". Of course they're a good thing. But the debate is about whether we would have religion without them.

 

Malchik: Good points. But in this case, my method is the correct one. The initial question rephrased a bit "Is the evidence for God enough to convince an emotionless person to believe in it?" Therefore it is entirely relevant to demand evidence and facts here.

 

So my view is that the removal of (or non-existence of) emotion would not affect the development of religion. At the end of the day the purpose of ALL religions is to keep the proles in check and that is not connected to emotion.

 

Except that greed and desire for power are emotions. Without emotions, there are no proles and no need to keep them in check.