4 Answers

  1. You can ask the question of whether you are a bus or a tram, but only to understand that trains and planes successfully transport millions of people for various reasons – to leave home for a new life, to see different regions and countries, to return home to go on the road again.�

    “And they both got off somewhere near Taganrog, among endless fields.
    And everyone went their own way, and the train went its own way.”

    Such a Time Machine!


  2. I strongly advise you to try Nagarjuna's philosophy. There was a guy like that about two thousand years ago. In the Mula-madhyamaka karikas, Nagarjuna considers and rejects as irrelevant such categories as causality, motion, time, space, quantity, and a number of others. When he lectured his students, he warned them that they should put aside his words and get to the bottom of reality themselves.

    Following his example, I can say that no machines, as well as living organisms, also do not exist. There are certain ideas about them, about life, about death, about reality-which are probably true for some percentage.

    But if we take the global situation, then there is simply reality. So-and-so and so-and-so. Everything else, so to speak, is from the evil one :).

    There is no cause and effect. There is no karma – there is an idea that there is a causal relationship (some representatives of the human race so amusingly claim that this karma is omnipresent :)). There is no God – there is Something/Someone called God. There is no man, there is someone called a man. Words, names, names, formulas and formulations, laws and norms are simply pointers to what reality may be.

    There is just what is and who is. And some information about reality.

    In this situation, any categoricality and unambiguity becomes strange.

    At the same time, Nagarjuna's philosophy differs from ancient skepticism in that it does not absolutize ignorance of anything. It also moves away from this trap of agnosticism and towards the sly smile of the Buddha.

    I think it is better to read Japanese haiku, which teach you to appreciate man as man, machines as machines, science as science.

    Just do not be afraid of paradoxes. Our very life is a paradox. Just slowly become a paradox yourself, get used to it. Maybe you'll start writing poetry too… A true writer, as old Hemingway used to say, does nothing but describe his pain as accurately as possible.

    Well, has the pain subsided?

  3. Names of objects of the material world are just our way of classifying them by their physical properties, in order to be able to compactly exchange information about interaction with them in the future. Instead of explaining to the other person what a stone is every time, so that the latter understands what it is about, it is enough to describe its basic physical properties and assign a general name to the objects that have them.

    Therefore, it does not matter whether you classify your body as a living organism or as a non-living mechanism. The word “alive” in the context of the given question is an abstract concept and, apparently, consists only in the complexity and method of forming the object to which it is usually applied.�

    At the same time, assuming that the deterministic model of the universe is correct, we can state that both a “living organism” and a “non-living mechanismz” are true(and “stone”) they exist according to the same principles of causality, so there is, of course, “a lot in common”between them�(but that doesn't make you identify a person with a rock, does it?)

  4. All right. We are “machines”. “Higher mechanisms” so to speak. Our “parts” are alive, not as we used to think in ordinary mechanisms. There is simply no fair term to describe who we really are and what the churches deserve. They have their own term for this – “person”.

    But there is life, it's just not in the same concept as we used to think. Life is the existence of our “mechanisms”. No soul. But this is already a blatant lie, which in 200 years our ancestors will laugh at, as we laugh at the theory of a flat Earth.

Leave a Reply