Gio wrote: ↑
23 May 2019, 11:07
[...] a being capable of "seeing the fourth dimension" or rather "seeing time"[...] Another more earthly example is a being the size of bacteria, whose entire lifetime is not enougth to cross a few "gigantic" grains of sand.[...] [...] Consider a superior being [...] how would this being experience timelapses? [...] He, if human, would probably be too bored [...]
Frosti wrote: ↑
24 May 2019, 16:59
I ask my self - a little dogs and a big dogs brain - which dog has more capability's? None of them. I hope I'm staying right here. Why do not you notice a difference to the dog, say, one million brain cells left?
Interestingly, animals, as far as we can say, may not get bored
(boredom - that is, what's appear when one have "nothing"
"Nothing" can appear but one can actually also "see" the time. The time appears
("it lasts longer") - and by excellence - in the aforementioned mood: the boredom
Your exemples are valuable for me and interesting. Just as with Flipeador
, I'm certainly sympathetic to your way you both looking at this matter, each time for different reasons. Concerning your quote, I want to see it as if you pour through a small alley - a consideration of the being of the phenomenon
- of the avenue of discussion I suggested on the subject: a consideration of the phenomenon of being
This being said, I'll give more elements to your game example, Gio
(using a distinct conceptuality).
How one can hope define fear (for instance) from outside perspective? Intrinsically, the fear is lived; why the hell would we want to deny its existence
A distinction is made in principle between a car and the consicence of a car. But nothing
separates me, "res cogitans
", from this car: nothing but my freedom. Actually, what can separate me from this car? "Mental structures" and other alleged internal worlds? The "degree of intelligence", a chromatopsia etc.
? What can separate me from the being
of the car because, precisely, it is
? Not even its absence: it is an aspect of its being.
Now what could be "me" aside from being consicience of a - for example - car? Husserl says: "every conscience is conscience of something" - for exemple: of this red car in the street on a moonlit night in the spring etc.
The fear (the car etc.
) is always (ontologically speaking, not epistemologically) objective
because I'm afraid, by definition, of an object, of something
(of snakes, of free women, of darkness - whatever). I'm afraid of
something in the world - it should be - if you will pardon the expression - a no-brainer!
Actually, I cannot see this statement: "We are only brain" other than as lip service, aimed at filling, hide from view the holes of the universe. Actually, it is one thing to say: "The brain works like this. I can observe links between technically observable brain states (in the world
) and observable human behaviours (for example: the fear)." But it is clearly another thing to say: "We are only brain".
Now I can come back to your other exemples in general and I will try to give more elements, my point of view with the little general culture I have (expecially as regards the field of science). That's also why one may consider that I too easily cut the Gordian knot.
Admittedly, spirit is not just a word, the history of ideas as a real object, human apprehend itself through technics, etc.
But, at the root, as BEING it can only experiences reality AS BEING and BEING. We have no access to an non-human absolute (God, death etc.
). Human is, at the root, alone in the universe.
Regarding animals, lastly, they are an elusive aperture, a decompression in the being - I can't say otherwise. As I see it, it is doubtful that neurology solely - without help of the ethology in particular - could lead to an exhaustion of the being of animals. It will probably still remain an inexorable mystery.
If someone says: "I don't care about the question: why there's something instead of nothing"? As paradoxical as it might seem, I should specify: " I do not doubt it, this is precisely because you are
this question." This is all the paradox of the OP, as I envisage it. "Carelessness" is a way of life just as, if not more, relevant than sickly preoccupation and anxiety. But this is far more easily said than done...