# Why does 'stuff' &/or 'perception' of stuff exist?



## RegularJoe (Dec 19, 2018)

*Why does stuff exist?*
I ask this with full recognition that a number of us might well advance that stuff is only 'perceived' to exist, 
and I respect and reasonably understand that view .... in which case my inquiry would would be slightly modified to ~ 
*What is perception and, then, why does perception exist?*
Thx.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 19, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> *Why does stuff exist?*
> I ask this with full recognition that a number of us might well advance that stuff is only 'perceived' to exist,
> and I respect and reasonably understand that view .... in which case my inquiry would would be slightly modified to ~
> *What is perception and, then, why does perception exist?*
> Thx.




https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&q=why+is+there+something+instead+of+nothing

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all

I love Sean Carrol and this program, Closer to Truth.  I can watch it for hours.






Here's Sean talking about Consciousness/Perception:






Here's a bunch of David Chalmers talking about consciousness:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=consciousness+chalmers

Here's Max Tegmark talking about consciousness:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=consciousness+tegmark

Here's Sam examining with consciousness through mindfulness:


----------



## RegularJoe (Dec 19, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&q=why+is+there+something+instead+of+nothing



Thanks for the time and thought in your reply.
Am commencing to benefit from working thru each component.
Your above Link even beautifully bluntly adds the* 'What if not'  *element ...
_*"It’s not a question—it’s the question—and the more you think about it, the less sense it makes.*
*First, my mind goes to “Wait—why is there anything at all?” Why is there space and time and matter and energy at all?"*_


----------



## 660griz (Dec 19, 2018)

RegularJoe said:


> Your above Link even beautifully bluntly adds the* 'What if not' *element ...
> _*"It’s not a question—it’s the question—and the more you think about it, the less sense it makes.*
> *First, my mind goes to “Wait—why is there anything at all?” Why is there space and time and matter and energy at all?"*_


It is questions like that, that will lead you to either, I don't know, I don't care, or God did it cause he loves us.


----------



## Israel (Dec 19, 2018)

That's an interesting question in that "why" has an inevitable texture of motive to it. I felt the same texture when Sam Harris talked about an "ocean of prior causes".
In one sense to me they become a merged question as in Sam's  wrestling with free will: (which he ends postulating to denial) "why does the man _do_ what he does?" and yours: "why does stuff _do_ what _it does_...exist?"

Why doing?

I don't find Sam's answer poor except in an insufficiency, a mere matter of _quantity_ rather than the substance of _quality, _at least that is where I find a hope for both he and myself. Your's becomes a question antecedent to his, with me finding the answer the same in both.

Sam (as I hear him) says (postulating _no free will_) "the man has no choice as to what he does, no matter how it may appear to him that he does, the things that form _his doing _are already exerting irresistible influences that, at best, he can only acknowledge and have no conscious influence over." His references to parentage, locale of birth, even touching briefly the matter of which a man is made for which he has had _no portion_ in creating. He seems to say _"the stuff"_ (if I may)_ decides_ how the man will do. Even _has already decided._

(If a man cannot accept _decided_...if _determined _seems more acceptable, fine)

Yours, as I said is the antecedent...in part, what decides _the how_ of the stuff's doing upon a man? And, if caring to do the impossible here, exempt man from consideration at all: Why does the stuff..._do existence?_ As I said, I find his answer_ for man_ as applicable to the "stuff", it (of itself) has_ no choice._ No freedom to "not do" existence, just as I believe Sam is saying in way_ I contort. "_man is _not free_ to be not according as _precisely he is in existence._" (in either thinking, or doing) His matter(s) "is/are decided" (or again, determined if you prefer).

(And here's where the matter of understanding "existence" to a definition becomes either in need of bending to a manifest inutility or just tossed out, summarily)

For _if existence is itself a dependent thing, _even down to the very finest (or smallest) things of matter said "to exist", _that dependency_ must be demonstrating a prior "thing" of support/cause in its dependency. (I don't think any man need have the poverty of the word "thing" there...for all we know about "things" _is existence._)

Some have said "it's turtles all the way down", but turtles are_ things that exist_ in _same quality _as all else that exists. The One _of cause of existence (in which we live and move and "have" our being) is not of quailty of material things._ And therefore, the things we apply to existence or an existent thing...as occupying time and/or space, are useless. So, ultimately one could even say if one could receive it...man's matter, man's thoughts, words and deeds...mean nothing _in that. Kinda like my own._

That_ "that" _would be the all that is of consequence.



But just as all is determined to "a doing" in existence, I escape no less that command to occupy. To be. And do.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 20, 2018)

Israel said:


> That's an interesting question in that "why" has an inevitable texture of motive to it. I felt the same texture when Sam Harris talked about an "ocean of prior causes".
> In one sense to me they become a merged question as in Sam's  wrestling with free will: (which he ends postulating to denial) "why does the man _do_ what he does?" and yours: "why does stuff _do_ what _it does_...exist?"
> 
> Why doing?
> ...




He fried your brain.  I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 20, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> He fried your brain.  I have no idea what you're talking about.


One word.

Causation


----------



## Israel (Dec 20, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> He fried your brain.  I have no idea what you're talking about.



Joe's question is the question before Sam's...or after...not really mattering in what order to which it is arrived.

Sam says "No free will in man because _stuff_ (all out of his control) exerts influences he cannot even begin to account for , let alone (know all) and control. At least that's what I hear him saying. The effects of stuff...on man. I think he would even concede to some "stuff" as non material, but by product...like intelligence, education, probably along with disposition...which even if he couldn't always show the firm material link (though I would imagine he would strive hard to) would agree to.

OK...man, simply put, is _at the mercy_ of stuff (if you can bear that as a short colloquialism).

If one agrees with that (and there is no compulsion except) that _if one does see it that way, _disagreement would_ be the lie.  _

But stuff, if we agree to it/them as real, also "do" a thing. They exist. And that's what I hear in the question. "Why does stuff &/or perception of stuff exist". Doesn't "why" imply, or (at very least) have the texture of asking "for what_ reason_?" does stuff exist? And/or even perception of it?

Grizz recommends three possible answers. (Though I believe to some point he has made clear he _doesn't endorse_ every answer) But, as said, I live by change _and surprise._

I am inclined to believe Sam would say to the man who might say..."OK, I will admit (to some degree) I am affected by stuff..."

"No, you are not merely affected by it, you are under its complete control", I would hear Sam say.

So then, if stuff _exerts control_...what controls..."the stuff"?

That's why I said to me the two are much linked.

If Sam is indeed an atheist (I really don't know) he crosses into some weird territory by saying "the universe is pulling your strings". Think about that for a moment...really...and please. Maybe even longer than a moment if one can.

The thing/stuff "under study" for truth is _already_ jerking man around.


----------



## Israel (Dec 20, 2018)

Let me add, because Grizz and I have had some small conversation elsewhere; that once he introduces "God" in whatever form as answer, I find him neglecting one salient consideration...and one I have not found without (I believe) necessity.

Some may recognize it instantly...some would (I am persuaded, even among my kinsman) loathe my even approaching it, let alone speaking of it as _a necessity. _Even if only my own. I cannot say with any surety that all men must enter into it, but I am as equally persuaded as I am unsure, that some have.

Grizz says one possible answer is



> or God did it cause he loves us.



I have had to contend in this arena for an answer

or God did it because He loathes me...

You see, I have found myself with proclivity, by_ my own desire, _with pinky on "my side" of the balance. How could I know...He'd see? The seeing, which was to my own undoing, and demonstration as liar, as one willing always to tip the scales to my favor in all things...was of necessity, made known.

I thought I wanted, needed, was indeed_ in all hope_ for a dupe-able god...was shown as the wretchedness it is. The hope_ in myself, for myself _had to be laid waste. As though (to me) all hope was gone. Pfffft, in a moment. In the twinkling of an eye. You'd be amazed how long a moment can seem to last in that estate. If you have been there...you also know the reality of it...to your bones...and well beyond. Taking one's hand (or rather forced to) off the balance is surely not of any man's choosing. God knows my truth in this.

Am I saying the outworking of that moment of complete conquer (no, it was not surrender anymore than the ant can claim "he didn't kill me with his boot as he walked, "I surrendered"...always wanting to touch its own will for a surety...the very same thing found in "you can't fire me, I quit!") has had its fullness? God knows. And God knows what came out _of a man _in that moment, to me the purest communication I have ever cried out, singular, thoughtless, even (to me) hopeless.


Knowing the terror of the Lord we persuade men. Paul said. I won't here pretend I understand him, but _I know_ he said that.

Desire and will are very effective things. Man just may learn there is a place where his own must absolutely buckle in their denatured poverty.

Yes, God_ perfectly loathes_ what_ would (or be found trying to) put_ its finger on the balance. But that should never be implied that in His knowing he has not made provision for _it. _You see, it was _not my knowing_ that caused _me to know _of such surety how the balance_ must tip _in my weighing.

Scales can be taken away.

Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ!


----------



## Israel (Dec 20, 2018)

Can _the universe_ give what it does not have, if indeed all that a man might have is given in and by the universe? And if then "man has it" is it corollary it is endowed by the universe alone and therefore _exists in it...whether discovered yet...or not_?


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 20, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> He fried your brain.  I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Israel (Dec 20, 2018)

Ahhh...were Sam to learn laughter need not come from comedy alone...


----------



## RegularJoe (Feb 21, 2020)

I am working my way thru, now, most of  'Augustine of Hippo's book, Confessions
(written about 375AD.).
Because Augustine covers many topics in said book on what I will call simply 'existence' of stuff,
his work reminded me of this string from a year ago.
More specifically, his observation on 'time' is that, as best he can tell : ),
the past does not exist (we have _evidence_ that it did exist, of course),
the future does not exist quite yet,
only the present instant actually exists.
*Where am I going with this in relation to the Original Post?*
I am simply wishing to offer a slightly different view that the above has given me as to the properties of 'stuff.'  If one accepts as true what Augustine is offering, then 'stuff' is only a present tense thing.  I can know only thru _present_ evidence that 'stuff' existed in the past ... and _present _evidence is the best I have got.


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 21, 2020)

RegularJoe said:


> More specifically, his observation on 'time' is that, as best he can tell : ),
> the past does not exist (we have _evidence_ that it did exist, of course),
> the future does not exist quite yet,
> only the present instant actually exists.


Evidence is experiential and experience is always past... 

But the past no longer exist and can provide no knowledge of the future.


----------

