Deep Thoughts

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 1,101 comments
  • 90,732 views
I think purpose and meaning are not related in this instance. The only example I can think of right now is a work of art - its purpose is to stimulate the brain or convey a message but to ask "what is the meaning of this work of art" will often draw a blank, even from the artist. Art often has purpose without meaning.

One may ask in response to that question "what is the purpose of death?" and come across the same mystery.

Death is an event though, it would be analogous to asking "what is the purpose of being born", rather than "what is the meaning of life", it is the outcome of a situation or event that precedes it.

Besides, I took it that @Touring Mars was questioning the format of the question, rather than the validity of the answer - which are two separate things. To me the issue was the use of the word "meaning", which given that definitions such as this...

meaning
[mee-ning]
noun
1.
what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated;signification; import:
the three meanings of a word.
2.
the end, purpose, or significance of something:
What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion?
3.
Linguistics.
  1. the nonlinguistic cultural correlate, reference, or denotation of alinguistic form; expression.
  2. linguistic content (opposed to expression ).

...exist, if you wish to question somebody about what they think the purpose of, or reason for, Life is... the "what is the meaning of life?" approach is valid - but open to interpretation.


Somebody once asked me for some interconnects for their Hi-fi, I asked them "How long do you need them?", he said "Two weeks". Given that two weeks isn't a property of a set of interconnects was the answer invalid?, or did the question not make any sense? Or, was it simply a reasonable answer to a reasonable question, that is evidently open to interpretation?
 
I always found it interesting that I can think myself into depression. Like, all I am is a bunch of shortcomings. To never think about the good side. We take remember criticism and forget compliments. At least I do. Does anyone else ever think about why; at least to some of us, our shortcomings being pointed out affect us more than compliments?
 
To me the issue was the use of the word "meaning", which given that definitions such as this...

Noted and accepted.

I always found it interesting that I can think myself into depression. Like, all I am is a bunch of shortcomings. To never think about the good side. We take remember criticism and forget compliments. At least I do. Does anyone else ever think about why; at least to some of us, our shortcomings being pointed out affect us more than compliments?

I don't think I've ever experienced a depression, of which I'm prone to, which I haven't thought myself into. It's not, for me, about short comings or the like; I love my life and have achieved a great many things beyond me station. Being drawn into a depressive state is a chemical imbalance that many depressives have no control over. That isn't to say that it cannot be combated with the right frame of mind and the perseverance to subdue the affliction.

I say this as a sufferer of manic depression which governed my life for many years. I tell you this now as a grown man that has come to terms with what I am not and made good my life by focusing on what I am.

What I am is the sum of my actions, which, for the most part have been good and just. That is today what keeps me from falling into despair and reminds me that my own personal suffering is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the world. Basically I chose to Man The **** Up and use my flippant moods to benefit my situation.
 
Noted and accepted.



I don't think I've ever experienced a depression, of which I'm prone to, which I haven't thought myself into. It's not, for me, about short comings or the like; I love my life and have achieved a great many things beyond me station. Being drawn into a depressive state is a chemical imbalance that many depressives have no control over. That isn't to say that it cannot be combated with the right frame of mind and the perseverance to subdue the affliction.

I say this as a sufferer of manic depression which governed my life for many years. I tell you this now as a grown man that has come to terms with what I am not and made good my life by focusing on what I am.

What I am is the sum of my actions, which, for the most part have been good and just. That is today what keeps me from falling into despair and reminds me that my own personal suffering is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the world. Basically I chose to Man The **** Up and use my flippant moods to benefit my situation.
For me other people make me feel better. It's the best way that I found. I guess I'm more disappointed then sad with my self when I think about it, like I'm not good enough.
 
Just had a bit of thought on hobbies and how for some, it can give people skills or wants to do something in the future and become successful. Then you got the "trap hobbies", the ones that while you enjoy them and are for your leisure, they are absolutely pointless in every other situation and can be seen as a waster of time and only you can see their true worth.

Compare a person whose hobby is working with computers and a fan fic writer. The fan fic writer will most likely just stay as a fan fic writer while a person who works with computers can eventually make it a job. I actually know someone at School who actually now works as Tech Support for other Schools and later on can even go and work for Microsoft, if he keeps at it but a fan fic writer will probably never be a professional writer or even come close to writing actualy stories (I do know some fan fic writers that actually do go up there but those are very few from what I know of).

I've pretty much been in a "trap hobby" all my life in that of drawing game levels, characters and even game mechanics in drawing books and have even more on into designing my own fan made Trading Card Game but these won't go anywhere due to other skills required that I lack.

I don't consider "trap hobbies" to be a bad thing though. There is never anything wrong with doing something just for enjoyment and nothing more even if it has no chance of getting you anywhere, that's why I still do what I do but it is just something that came through my head when looking up TAFE courses.
 
Just had a bit of thought on hobbies and how for some, it can give people skills or wants to do something in the future and become successful. Then you got the "trap hobbies", the ones that while you enjoy them and are for your leisure, they are absolutely pointless in every other situation and can be seen as a waster of time and only you can see their true worth.

Compare a person whose hobby is working with computers and a fan fic writer. The fan fic writer will most likely just stay as a fan fic writer while a person who works with computers can eventually make it a job. I actually know someone at School who actually now works as Tech Support for other Schools and later on can even go and work for Microsoft, if he keeps at it but a fan fic writer will probably never be a professional writer or even come close to writing actualy stories (I do know some fan fic writers that actually do go up there but those are very few from what I know of).

I've pretty much been in a "trap hobby" all my life in that of drawing game levels, characters and even game mechanics in drawing books and have even more on into designing my own fan made Trading Card Game but these won't go anywhere due to other skills required that I lack.

I don't consider "trap hobbies" to be a bad thing though. There is never anything wrong with doing something just for enjoyment and nothing more even if it has no chance of getting you anywhere, that's why I still do what I do but it is just something that came through my head when looking up TAFE courses.
I may know nothing outside of cars but I will say this.
I agree with you about some, but if you design game mechanics and levels I'm sure you could get a job at Nintendo or PlayStation or whatever game company.
 
I may know nothing outside of cars but I will say this.
I agree with you about some, but if you design game mechanics and levels I'm sure you could get a job at Nintendo or PlayStation or whatever game company.
Only on pieces of paper and Super Mario Maker. Can't get good at anything else when it comes to designing games :P
 
Just had a bit of thought on hobbies and how for some, it can give people skills or wants to do something in the future and become successful. Then you got the "trap hobbies", the ones that while you enjoy them and are for your leisure, they are absolutely pointless in every other situation and can be seen as a waster of time and only you can see their true worth.

I'd widen it a bit and say that traps are the ones that lose money and productive hobbies are the ones that save or make money - at least potentially. Most hobbies are losers at first.

Traps:
- Knitting
- Sewing
- Collecting porcelain figurines
- Bingo
- Gardening
- Video Games
- Woodworking
- Autocross (yup, I said it)
- Fishing

Productive:
- Fixing cars
- Computers (hacking, scripting, hardware assembly)
- Home improvement
- Cooking
- Stock trading
- Hunting (some hunters use the meat to stock their freezers)
- Painting

That last one may not seem like a winner, but being able to think of what art you'd like to have on that wall and then go make it is actually pretty nice and can save you some cash.
 
Has anyone thought about the different ways to get immerse into a Movie/Show/Game, while most like to insert themselves as one of the characters (namely the main character) to be immersed in to something and experience and feel how that person is feeling. I'm sure that there are man other ways to get immersed into content.

For me, I get immersed by inserting my own Character into the story, usually with a completely out-there goal that requires observing situations more than being in them, and I feel how that Character I inserted would feel. I actually inserted 1 character in 3 Different Animes (Hunter x Hunter, Parasyte and another I forgot the name of) as a sort of Trilogy of the Character going to different worlds to learn values of his own world and life.
 
When people say 'if there are an infinite number of universes, then there must be a universe somewhere where I am the richest person on the planet' or something similar, I think this is a misunderstanding of what 'infinite universes' probably means.

Having an infinite number of universes doesn't mean there is infinite variety and that 'every conceivable situation must be happening somewhere'. Consider each universe as a whole number - there can be an infinite number of them, each labeled with its own unique number... 1,2,3,4... etc. It's possible that they are all totally identical. It's possible that they are all so similar as to be indistinguishable i.e. Universe 42 and Universe 457384728749237492374923 are identical except for a carbon atom in the left pinky of Bill Gates is carbon-13 and not carbon-12. It's also possible that for universes to even exist at all that they must all meet the same basic requirements and are 'quantized' in some way e.g. you can't get a universe 1.00001 or 0.9999999 - it's either a whole number or it doesn't exist, thus placing limits on the kind of universes that can possibly exist while maintaining the fact that there could be an infinite number of them. It's also possible that all existing universes (and an infinite number of them) are all completely different, but within the limits of what is possible. It's also possible that there are an infinite number of universes and there are no limits to what can and can't possibly happen, but that they are all still completely different.

My take home point is this - I reject the idea that 'I' exist multiple (or even infinite times) and that 'somewhere I'm the king of the world' is likely or true. I think it infinitely more likely that I/we are totally unique in the universe, even though there are possibly infinite universes out there.
 
I think we just don't exist in any other Universe, if there were suppose to be little changes at all then that would extend to way back in time before we are born, the Human Race probably doesn't even exist in most Universes.
 
My take home point is this - I reject the idea that 'I' exist multiple (or even infinite times) and that 'somewhere I'm the king of the world' is likely or true. I think it infinitely more likely that I/we are totally unique in the universe, even though there are possibly infinite universes out there.

I think it depends on whether you believe that different actions have the ability to spawn new branching Universes or that we simply live in a single bubble separated from other, distinct Universes with distinct properties and histories.

-

On a more fundamental level, for "you" to have been born, you would have to have been conceived... and that's already a million-something to one chance... that one particular spermatozoa fertilized a ripe egg... it's a safe bet that even if there are an infinite number of Universes with you in it, you would still be born into the same socio-economic standing in most of them... unless your parents win the lottery between your conception and birth. I'm pretty sure, with identical or almost-identical histories leading up to your conception, your life would follow mostly the same trajectory in each of them.

So no... I doubt that, even if branching multiverses are real, any of us are "King of the World" in any of them.


Has anyone thought about the different ways to get immerse into a Movie/Show/Game, while most like to insert themselves as one of the characters (namely the main character) to be immersed in to something and experience and feel how that person is feeling. I'm sure that there are man other ways to get immersed into content.

For me, I get immersed by inserting my own Character into the story, usually with a completely out-there goal that requires observing situations more than being in them, and I feel how that Character I inserted would feel. I actually inserted 1 character in 3 Different Animes (Hunter x Hunter, Parasyte and another I forgot the name of) as a sort of Trilogy of the Character going to different worlds to learn values of his own world and life.

I dont' identify as any character when watching a non-interactive show. I can insert myself into a fairly open-ended game, but more often, I simply view it from the third person, occassionally empathizing with the character, but not completely identifying with him/her.

-

Dreams are different. I am distinctly different characters/personas in some dreams, living them out in first person... though the persona will sometimes shift partway through the dream.
 
it depends on whether you believe that different actions have the ability to spawn new branching Universes
Yeh, I don't buy that idea - the idea that every fleeting thought that we have can create another universe to accommodate our choice is quite absurd. This is kind of what I was getting at - the idea that entire new actual real, tangible universes might crop up to accommodate whatever whims we might have is not made any more likely by the possibility of there being an infinite number of universes. Indeed, following that logic there could be an infinite number of universes that are all identical except for the behaviour of the atoms in my bowl of cereal this morning. It seems absurdly wasteful - do we need to invoke the presence of an entirely separate universe just to explain why a coin landed on heads or tails? I don't think so.
 
My take home point is this - I reject the idea that 'I' exist multiple (or even infinite times) and that 'somewhere I'm the king of the world' is likely or true. I think it infinitely more likely that I/we are totally unique in the universe, even though there are possibly infinite universes out there.

I was thinking about this just today as my father doesn't believe the universe is infinite for this reason. The way I see it is that the 'other' you with a kipper on your head isn't a suggestion of what is, merely an example of the possibilities and probabilities present in an infinite universe. If the universe is infinite then it's probable that there are an infinite number of chances that there is another 'you' with 3 legs.

As a scientists you must be aware of the typing chimps experiment. A simulation was run in hyper-speed up time (something like close to several billion years were covered I think) in which 100 simulated chimps at 100 type writers couldn't produce the complete works of Shakespeare in order, nor even manage a single sentence of any of his work. Yet if universe and therefore time is infinite it must happen (according to the theory behind the study) because it cannot not happen given the time and probability. Unfortunately, probability predictions are based on likelihoods and not certainties.

EDIT: Ignore this, I just read that you wrote an infinite number of universes not an infinite universe. Mt mistake. It's late. I'm sleepy.

I do have a reply for the infinite number of universes idea but I'm far too tired for brain bending right the now.
 
Yeh, I don't buy that idea - the idea that every fleeting thought that we have can create another universe to accommodate our choice is quite absurd. This is kind of what I was getting at - the idea that entire new actual real, tangible universes might crop up to accommodate whatever whims we might have is not made any more likely by the possibility of there being an infinite number of universes. Indeed, following that logic there could be an infinite number of universes that are all identical except for the behaviour of the atoms in my bowl of cereal this morning. It seems absurdly wasteful - do we need to invoke the presence of an entirely separate universe just to explain why a coin landed on heads or tails? I don't think so.

I think it's an attractive idea simply because of the wishful thinking such ideas elicit, but in the end, it really means nothing if none of those probable universes are accessible, anyway.

It's at least more palatable than a Universe in which perfect cups of tea coalesces out of the void of space. My issue with most people's concepts of an infinite number of Universes is the idea that absolutely anything could happen out there... but all those Universes will still need to follow some coherent set of laws.
 
Why do newspapers/magazines publish the solution to Sudoku puzzles?

Google came up with, "So that you can match your solution with the correct one. Isn't this obvious?"... but, there is only one correct solution to the puzzle, and you either get it or you don't... it's not like a crossword where you can say "Ah, of course, that makes sense!" for an answer you were stuck on - you can't look at a completed sudoku and figure out why there should be a 2 in that blank space on your puzzle - since if you knew why the 2 was there, you wouldn't need the solution!
 
I think it's because they have to prove that a solution exists. If only that would be the norm for opinion pieces... :sly:

Funny, I think opinion pieces are puzzles to solved...what's their agenda? What illogical idea are they trying to convey? Or is the writer out of touch with the situation they're discussing? But in the end, it's opinion...the point is that there's an idea, it doesn't necessarily have to be fully accepted or entirely rejected; sometimes you can unwrap the layers and get to the idea(s) which do not necessarily have a binary value.

Why do newspapers/magazines publish the solution to Sudoku puzzles?

They should publish it in the following issue...
 
Really the essence of a human is their brain. Whatever their body looks like, it's not who they are. Sure you can infer things about their brain from what they look like. Morbidly Obese people, for example, have something wrong with their brains that causes them to eat vastly more than their body needs. But for the most part, our body is just a conveyance. It's a means of transportation for our brain. Imagine all of the people you see on the street, in line at the coffee shop, driving on the road... they're just brains floating in a segway of meat and bone. A couple kissing on a park bench is a couple of brains that decided they liked each other.

krang-136340.jpg
 
Really the essence of a human is their brain. Whatever their body looks like, it's not who they are. Sure you can infer things about their brain from what they look like. Morbidly Obese people, for example, have something wrong with their brains that causes them to eat vastly more than their body needs. But for the most part, our body is just a conveyance. It's a means of transportation for our brain. Imagine all of the people you see on the street, in line at the coffee shop, driving on the road... they're just brains floating in a segway of meat and bone. A couple kissing on a park bench is a couple of brains that decided they liked each other.

You are beginning to sound like a zombie.

Are you a zombie?

Why do newspapers/magazines publish the solution to Sudoku puzzles?

I love Sudoku myself and play it whenever I'm bored on my newspaper, and yeah, solutions are pointless. Especially since it's pointless to see the answer, given Sudoku is a very logical game, and every Sudoku game I've come across so far is one that can be solved, in 50% of the cases, with logical thought. The other 50% relies on guessing and see how far along you can go without hitting a contradiction.
 
Last edited:
Really the essence of a human is their brain. Whatever their body looks like, it's not who they are. Sure you can infer things about their brain from what they look like. Morbidly Obese people, for example, have something wrong with their brains that causes them to eat vastly more than their body needs. But for the most part, our body is just a conveyance. It's a means of transportation for our brain. Imagine all of the people you see on the street, in line at the coffee shop, driving on the road... they're just brains floating in a segway of meat and bone. A couple kissing on a park bench is a couple of brains that decided they liked each other.

If you see ýour body only as means of transportation you are ignoring the other things it does, it makes you hear wonderful music, gives you the sense of touch, allows you to actually recognize the physical world. Also the body has a huge effect on how the brain works, many of the hormones essential for several brain functions which are produced outside the brain have a huge effect on how you think and act. Brain and body form a much tighter bond than you realize.
 
If you see ýour body only as means of transportation you are ignoring the other things it does, it makes you hear wonderful music, gives you the sense of touch, allows you to actually recognize the physical world. Also the body has a huge effect on how the brain works, many of the hormones essential for several brain functions which are produced outside the brain have a huge effect on how you think and act. Brain and body form a much tighter bond than you realize.

All the body does for those things is transport those signals to your brain.
 
All the body does for those things is transport those signals to your brain.

I often feel this way, but then, I'm not really feeling it with my brain.

Our identity is fluid, and it is composed of more than our thoughts. The filters through which we see, hear, touch and taste/smell the world color the state of our cognition, as do the chemicals, hormones and neurotransmitters that mediate our emotional state.

It's debatable whether a brain in a jar will have any emotions. Will it panic inside the jar? Without a neurotransmitter imbalance to trigger it, or a body to feel it, what would that panic entail? A philosophical conundrum, voiced out monotone through a speaker?

While I'm pretty sure our consciousness could live as a brain in a jar, or eventually, pure data, I wonder whether the resulting persona would really be us. I look back at my memories of childhood and adolescence, and I know that even though my consciousness experienced those things, that person wasn't truly me. Rather, a stranger who inhabited the consciousness I now occupy, with different desires, emotions and outlooks, all mediated by a strikingly different body and brain chemistry, and informed by a much less mature brain.

-

TL;DR: Body matters, whether we like it or not. Because while the brain is an invisible puppeteer, the body also tugs at the strings of the brain.
 
I often feel this way, but then, I'm not really feeling it with my brain.

Our identity is fluid, and it is composed of more than our thoughts. The filters through which we see, hear, touch and taste/smell the world color the state of our cognition, as do the chemicals, hormones and neurotransmitters that mediate our emotional state.

It's debatable whether a brain in a jar will have any emotions. Will it panic inside the jar? Without a neurotransmitter imbalance to trigger it, or a body to feel it, what would that panic entail? A philosophical conundrum, voiced out monotone through a speaker?

While I'm pretty sure our consciousness could live as a brain in a jar, or eventually, pure data, I wonder whether the resulting persona would really be us. I look back at my memories of childhood and adolescence, and I know that even though my consciousness experienced those things, that person wasn't truly me. Rather, a stranger who inhabited the consciousness I now occupy, with different desires, emotions and outlooks, all mediated by a strikingly different body and brain chemistry, and informed by a much less mature brain.

-

TL;DR: Body matters, whether we like it or not. Because while the brain is an invisible puppeteer, the body also tugs at the strings of the brain.
Sure does, especially when you're body isn't normal, like mine. It has a huge effect on your thoughts and your brain.
 
While reading about fusion in the Sun, I came across the phenomenon of quantum tunneling.
The theory is that quantum tunneling is responsible for overcoming/bypassing the Coulomb barrier.

Simply put: Without quantum tunneling, the Sun could not achieve fusion of Hydrogen. (Or so they say)

I've read numerous articles and watched countless videos on quantum tunneling, but nobody seems to want to talk about the actual dynamics.

Now, I'm not going to get a PhD in physics/mathematics anytime soon so if anyone could help me understand this in terms of something less esoteric than a set of intimidating equations, or, point me towards someone/something that can, I'd be most grateful.

V
 
Last edited:
While reading about fusion in the Sun, I came across the phenomenon of quantum tunneling.
The theory is that quantum tunneling is responsible for overcoming/bypassing the Coulomb barrier.

Simply put: Without quantum tunneling, the Sun could not achieve fusion of Hydrogen. (Or so they say)

I've read numerous articles and watched countless videos on quantum tunneling, but nobody seems to want to talk about the actual dynamics.

Now, I'm not going to get a PhD in physics/mathematics anytime soon so if anyone could help me understand this in terms of something less esoteric than a set of intimidating equations, or, point me towards someone/something that can, I'd be most grateful.

V



Basically, the electrical repulsion between hydrogen atoms in the sun is too high for fusion to happen at the given amount of pressure and heat present. Quantum tunneling allows the protons of each atom to "tunnel" through that charged barrier between them and fuse.

It's based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Where position is indeterminate, there is a non-zero chance that a particle will be on the opposite side of that electrical charge wall... hence... it "tunnels" through to the other side to get chummy with its fellow proton.

That's from fifteen minutes with Wikipedia... :lol:
 
Back