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

Hi
I noticed you seem to think I've worked it all out. I wish!
Dunno about that, I just can't see for the life of me why someone would start positing entities we can't see, feel, touch or measure in any way, when they're not compatible with what we've learned about the universe, and when I can't see the need for them.
I also think they don't explain anything either.
I'm not sussed, I just can't believe nobody else can't see how simple it all is.
Down with intangible entities which explain nothing!
would be a crap rallying call, but it's all I got.
So what's your take on it all then?

Oooh, a visitor. Hello.

But I have to go to bed and can't reply properly right now

I'll come back to you on the meaning of life later in the week

But I hope you don't think I was accusing you of anything, in a way I suppose I'm envious that you were coming across as having a definite point of view!

Back soon

Mol

Well, thinking about the meaning of life and how to explain my take on it has kept me busy this week.

But I'm still in the realm of beliefs with what I've come up with. And, incidentally, I'm not of any religion and nor do I envisage god as an old man with a beard up in the sky.

I think I am composed of three parts:

My body, which is entirely of this world
My soul, which is entirely of another world
My mind, which connects, and also obscures, the two

The connection between mind and soul happens most frequently during dreams, but also during out-of-body experiences (which I have had briefly but rarely). The rest of the time, there is a curtain between mind and soul that prevents them from connecting; but I think the soul still influences the mind, mainly with regard to emotions.

One day, my soul will leave my body behind and travel further than I can remember travelling before in dreams or OBEs, and somewhere, up in the stars is how I imagine it, there will be a Place, where I'll find lots of other souls that I'd forgotten I knew. Not sure how it works from this point - perhaps all the souls have their own Personal Space, and leave messages for each other . But eventually I - that is, my soul - will return to a different body, perhaps here, perhaps in another world.

Not remotely scientific. But I find it quite comforting and it makes sense to me ... and it's what I believe at the moment. I think this might be why people talk about that kind of thing here - it's hard to accept that we're born, we live and we die and that it is that simple and that final. If that is the case (born, live, die: get over it ), then what is the point? What are we here for?

And to answer *those* questions, we have to go beyond the universe we know, and the things we can touch and see - which is where your frustration kicks in.

I have to go now, I hope I explained my woolly thinking clearly enough!

Mol

Very interesting. OK, my take on things...

The earth is 4 1/2 billion years old. Life on earth is approx 4 billion years old, and since it started it has been evolving blindly by means of random mutation and natural selection. I reckon that this means, if you accept all the creatures alive just now as being products of this, then it's just absurd NOT to accept our brain as the product of evolution as well. Of course there are mountains of evidence in its favour, and I really don't understand why anyone (other than religious people with vested interests) would refuse to accept this.

Evolution only makes sense if it's viewed in a materialist light. There are no hidden forces behind it, just short-term survival for a very, very long time.

For me, anything people claim which doesn't take this into account is invalid. Probably not a perfect attitude for conversations like this, but it just seems so perfectly obvious to me. I genuinely don't understand why everyone doesn't agree with me. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic)

I had an incredibly vivid dream once, where I got out of bed, went downstairs, and flew back up again. It was in full technicolour, I remember the smells in the hall and the sound of the rain outside. I feel that this was just my brain idling or something, though. I just can't believe in the supernatural. After all, we have very strong reasons for believing the brain to be a solely materialist object (see above), and if something can interact with that then it will interact with a mechanical instrument.

There you go then...


Do you believe all living things have souls, or just us?

I'm still working it out

But, why isn't an evolved brain compatible with a soul? Cos I'm not a creationist and I'd like that one to work, somehow.

Mol
(don't be fooled by the googly eyes cos I gotta go in a min, just catching up!)

It's not incompatible, I don't suppose. It's completely unnecessary though, it seems to me. Nobody would say the heart pumps the blood all round the body, but isn't there something else which helps it. And this is something which can't be seen, and which doesn't help explain the great mystery of life.

I think the big mystery is how organised complexity exists. Life, consciousness 'n' aw that. A materialist explanation is the simplest, because we don't have to make up anything for it to be true. This doesn't make it demonstrably true of course, but I doubt any philosophical system could be proved true.

I'm beginning to feel I need to really sit down and think this through instead of trying to keep up at the end of a long day! But, to be going on with:

1. A soul is, I am sure, completely *physically* unnecessary. But that's no reason for it not to exist. It might be necessary for something else, about which we don't currently know very much.

2. Agree with what is the big mystery . The idea of souls commuting back and forth between worlds is an attempt to explain this mystery. Or maybe make it still more mysterious (there's a fine line between the two).

3. Come on - what *is* truth? How do you and I know that something is true anyway?

Mol

What *is* truth?
Hmmmmmmm.....
I doubt we'll find the ultimate *truth* about anything but we have evidence for certain things. The earth *does* go round the sun. We *did* evolve along with every other creature on earth, from a common ancestor. There is just so much evidence for these theories that it would just be wrong not to believe them.

I think the earth going round the sun is quite a good example of this. Because the earth doesn't actually go round the sun. Newton said that they both revolve around a centre of gravity. Because this is actually inside the sun, saying the earth revolves around it is a useful and accurate way of expressing the more subtle relationship. Newton posited that any body exerts a gravitational field which attracts other bodies. Again, this looks correct, but Einstein said, nope, a body curves space which looks just like what Newton said (at low energies, anyway).

This is a more complete description of reality that Newton's, and I would say is closer to the *truth* of the matter. Of course Einstein didn't come up with a perfect model of reality, but it's damn good.

Ultimate truth I'll leave to the philosophers; I'll just stick to what can be proved wrong if you study it carefully enough.

As for 1 and 2, Occam's razor says 'Do not multiply entities unnecessarily'. IE, don't make it up if it's not required

But maybe it *is* required. The physical sensation of sunshine on my face (warmth, light) also lifts my spirits and enhances my wellbeing. You can explain that in terms of vitamin D if you like, but I think a soulless existence would be a sorry thing.

Just to clarify - are you defining truth as that which *can't* be proved wrong if you study it carefully enough?!

Bedtime again - 2 exchanges tonight, not bad going though!

Mol

With thanks to dictionary.com

Truth, in the sense I (hopefully we) mean here, would be what corresponds to reality. I think 'scientific truth' is what can't be falsified or proved wrong.

A soulless existence, if I'm right, is not a sorry thing. Cos you feel what you feel anyway. Might be less comforting, but hey-ho...

*Why* and *how* do you feel what you feel anyway?

If we're in agreement that an event can lift our spirits, then the disagreement comes down to what our spirits might be. I think they can be defined as a single thing, a soul.

Few of us really understand how a car works, even though a car is something which can be taken apart and rebuilt and will then work properly again - unlike a person. So I don't think we are ever likely to know how a human being really works. We can understand how some of the components work and interact, that's all. The rest is guesswork. It might be based on evidence and it might be based on instinct (I personally think that both approaches have validity) but we don't *know* what makes us function as people.

I suppose I should have warned you from the start that you're dealing with somebody here who doesn't believe in statistics, calories or aeroplanes (the jury's still out on fairies). I'm comfortable with those non-beliefs (I've never read a convincing statistic, never seen a calorie, and cannot comprehend how something as heavy as a jumbo jet can float in the air), but I imagine there are plenty of people who would find them quite mind-boggling (eg, people who compile statistics, count calories, or think they have flown in an aeroplane).

So ... if "Truth ... corresponds to reality" ... what's reality, then?

<*Why* and *how* do you feel what you feel anyway?>
I'd say that you feel emotions due to the physical processes in your brain, whether through neurons sending messages to each other or chemicals like serotonin. If you take ecstasy, then it floods your brain with serotonin, and the result is you feel very, very happy (apparently). This is evidence (not proof, note) that this IS just a physical process.

As for understanding how the mind works, I think it will be possible in principle to understand the broad brushstrokes, but never the detail. In comparison, we understand how the weather works, but we'll never be able to predict it for a period far in advance. I don't think it will ever be possible to say that 'It will rain at 3 O'clock 45 years today, then be followed by snow at 6.' This is because of the countless interactions of all the things that make up the weather. In the same way, the way all the billions of neurons interact with each other makes it impossible to predict what the brain will do after a certain time.

As for statistics, well I work for an insurance company () which uses them to make about £400m a year profits, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. The laws of nature are statistical, even though you can't see them. Nevertheless, the *do* explain how parts of nature work very powerfully.
And aeroplanes don't float. Try turning the engines off on one and you'll see what I mean.
A woman who doesn't believe in calories, you're having a laugh surely?

And as for what is reality, 'The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.' will have to do cos I'm not a philosopher.

OK, your turn, what is life?

OWWWW! Apologies, didn't realise I hadn't answered - found out when I was checking the thread while writing another posting for the Is it just magic? conversation.

You still around, oh believer in statistics and aeroplanes?



Mol

Of course, you believer in immaterial things which interact with your material brain.
You're not gonna get much sense from me tonight though as the football (and accompanying beer) was very entertaining earlier on.

I forgot about the football ... who won?

A question that presupposes I know who was playing!

I have spent the *entire* evening on-site, posting loads, which I haven't done for *ages*, and shouldn't have done tonight . Oh well, it's been fun.

Anyway ... you set the last question and asked me to explain life. Hmm, quite a biggie there, maybe that's why I didn't answer

Mol