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" to do).
"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.
@Gio 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 and
transcendance?
. 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.
. transcendance:
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".
@Gio @Frosti 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...
Cheers