h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I plan to..as soon as I can find the time..perhaps later tonight..or tomorrow..I'm not positive hey Wes..i posted something to frakie 's space..not sure when (if) he'll get back on that..
Quille the confused and somewhat dodgy

oo yeah self-paradoxical..wonderful space really! Warmed my thoughts to see the dragons and blue font all constructed for goo and you. Nice refurbishing..now if only I can figure out how..
Quille the planning out the Triumvirate addition eventually

Ah, excellent! This is fun

Self-Paradoxical

I'll add the triumvirate to my page eventually...one day...right next to the part where it says I'm a Procrastinator.

Returning to the apple for a moment, thinking about the molecules of the apple helped me see the situation in a different way: the *only* place the apple exists is in our minds. What we see is a big bundle of electrons and protons and quarks (and god knows what even smaller stuff; I'm no physicist/chemist. ). But along the way to the processing of light to the brain, the atoms get all jumbled up into one big concept we call "apple", a definition which fits a lot of forms. (green and red and big and small and hard and sweet and...) Putting me sort of in mind of Plato, but that's not the issue.

So what I mean is that there really is no apple beyond what we make of it, and by that token there is no universe beyond what we make of it. Which is basically what was said already in several posts before this, but I just didn't grasp it well enough. Although it raises other thoughts. The apple must not exist at all to the table, then, because the table doesn't recognize the apple as being anything. (Because I think we can safely assume the table is not a sentient being, though we *do* learn new things every day. ) But, then, how does the world exist to an infant who has not yet made connections between different but similar images (like a crabapple and a Fuji)?

s and s to all,
~Wes

It's true that the table doesn't experiance the apple at all in our terms, but since our interpretation links the apple to the table, it is possible that the table experiances the apple in a different way than we do(light, touch, smell, taste, sound). While the table may not be a sentient being, it doesn't preclude the possibility that it too experiances a universe. Other than that, I pretty much agree with your statements.

Self-Paradoxical

True, the table may be interacting with the apple through some branch of physics we don't understand (having only five senses and all) but my point was, is it *thinking* about the apple? Is it forming an "apple concept" or is it just reacting with the apple's carbon chains?

I put the triumvirate on my space (too quickly; I may be expelled from the Procrastinators), but now I'm having trouble putting smilies on. The GuideML checker tells me I need ending tags for ....and adding them removes any effect whatsoever. The shortcuts like : + ) for don't work either. Hmmm.

s and s,
~Wes

That should read < biggrin>.

yes about the apple..infants..they percieve the apple as different in their minds from a fuji and a red delicious, but may not know the words or thoughts to truly grasp and describe it, which would explain the memory loss of infants yet memory gain of language and behavior, as your thoughts turn from completely sense-oriented to language-oriented. Of course, I am not an infant and can't remember these things so I really don't know. As for the table..I have no clue if it actually percieves the apple other than in its molecular structure, which is aware of the apple as the electrons jingle about (if you call that awareness). Aww..Ex Libris..the smiley tags are somewhere..they are special tags..you can't just use the simple symbols or <..> things. It's some kind of command anyhow. Ask an ACE..they'll tell you..or look up Researcher's GuideML help spaces.
OK gonna add the Triumvirate to my space as soon as I can..
Quille the pondering procrastinating to join the procrastinator's society

added the Triumvirate to my space off to sleep now I guess..I will learn GuideML someday!

Quille the procratinating

Thanks for the smiley tip. I've seen that page before; I don't know why I didn't retain the information. Oh well. I'll add the smileys to my space when it's not past 1 AM.

s and s and s for good measure,
~Wes

Lol, I saw your funny footnote about the triumvirate
It CAN just mean a group of three you know

Quite funny

Self-Paradoxical

ko Wes
Quille the laughing as the world attempts to retain order

Just butting in...
...On the Sophie's World front, it messes with your head a bit, especially the ending! Another good introduction is Peter Vardy's 'Puzzle of...series' I've got Puzzle of Ethics, and is a good informative read.
On the apple thing if 'everything is in flux' [Heraclitus, or maybe Pythagoras!], then the problem with this, is that how can you possibly characterise anything? If the keyboard I am writing on now not the same when I started, then is it still a keyboard? THe application of language to things, means that the similarity makes the argument pretty futile. I'm sure that Kant had something to say about it, but I honestly can't remember what, so you're denied that pleasure!
FwT

Well, I'd say your KEYBOARD is in a constant state of flux, but the atoms aren't. (I'm stealing the idea from Empedocles, courtesy of Sophie's World) He said all natural processes were the result of the basic elements moving around and shifting and changing proportions (in his day, they were earth/air/water/fire, but we've got a few more now). So while the atoms in my keyboard aren't necessarily the same ones that were in it ten minutes ago, I still call it a keyboard, because its appearance fits the keyboard "form" I have in my mind, and I have no reason to believe (or any way to prove) that my keyboard is *not* a keyboard, but a rock that's reflecting light very oddly and managing to feel like a keyboard as well. I think Plato's "divine form" argument makes sense--I don't believe in a mystical world where the "perfect keyboard" and the "perfect apple" exist, but rather that every person acquires those forms after a long period of exposure to everyday objects.


"The application of language to things, means that the similarity makes the argument pretty futile." Please explain what you mean by this; I don't understand.

s and s,
~Wes

My quote thing: I'm finding it hard to explain... arguing about dog for example, could mean a whole number of things, without the need for making it even more difficult! Philosophy is supposed to make things easier rather than harder! Is that better?
FwT
What do you think of my book suggestions?

i thought philosophy was supposed to see things from all angles and then decide the one that made the most sense...or some such. Whihc, generally, gets confusing.
Quille the of course that's just my philosophy..

Book suggestions: I looked at my library for "Puzzle of Ethics" (and anything with "puzzle of...", for that matter) but didn't find anything. I couldn't remember the author's name so I didn't look him up.

FwT has gone on holiday. I'm not sure if he'll be able to reply to that for about a fortnight. or 10 days (but maybe sooner afterall)
Q the

I tend to say that the purpose of philosophy is not to decide on what makes the most sense, but rather just to identify and clarify the possibilities. The reason I tend to think this is simply because a lot of philosophy revolves around topics that are purely opinion, and there often isn't one straight answer because it depends on one's view. Instead, I see philosophy as a method used to broaden one's horizons to new ideas and perspectives.

Self-Paradoxical

PS- Again, this is merely opinion, and of course, me being the uncertain being that I am, I believe all topics are opinion anyway, so the scope of philosophy is quite large indeed.

I would say that the ACT of philosophy is what you described, broadening horizons and examing what's out there, but that the PURPOSE of philosophy is to take those ideas and put them together and make some sort of sense out of it to form a system of beliefs. Everybody's beliefs (opinions) are different because (or this is what *I* think) everyone THINKS differently on a minute scale and so need different ways of explaining the world. It doesn't matter what conclusion is reached, just that one is found at all. This is my main problem with labels (religious, political, etc.) because they make it too easy to slip into a specific set of explanations that someone ELSE has arrived at through her own philosophy.

Anyway, down off my soapbox. I'm going to bed.

s and s to all,
~Wes