Why do we need a contrast to recognize a sensation? For example -; Think of hearing the same sound since your birth and think that you are hearing it without any variations. We will fail to recognize that we are perceiving a sensation and we won't be able to recognize the sense organ. Iam only 15,Forgive me if my question is fallacious. Thanks.

How do we know that some beings have a status as 'persons' and some beings do not? If we attempt to delineate certain characteristics of personhood, we run into the quandary of, say, labelling the mentally ill as non-persons or labelling cancer cells as persons. Is this a problem? Is there a way to avoid this? Must we have the rights which personhood entails in the first place?

I've read that consciousness, and a "soul", might be connected by quantum entanglement. As I understand it, "warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules" in neuronal cells generate EEG, or brain waves. Then, after death, the quanta that once generated electrochemical activity in the neocortex, somehow gets dispersed throughout space-time. And these particles are then linked by quantum entanglement. This phenomenon could encode, or preserve, information within the space-time fabric indefinitely, outside of a physical body. Could this be possible supporting evidence for the existence of a soul?

If God is the creator of the universe and all the living and non living things , Can he create or recreate himself ?

JM Keynes wrote on fundamental uncertainty that for some events in the future (such as whether or not there would be another European war or the interest rates 20 years from), we simply do not know what will happen. This is to say that there is no probability distribution at all - just complete uncertainty. Is this a coherent statement? It seems that there is always a probability for any given scenario (even if it the variables are extremely complicated). Chaos theory also seems to tell us that in a deterministic world there are some events that are too complex to predict. Are these not just a result of a lack of data or, perhaps, mathematical technique?

In my amateur philosophy club, my friend told me that modal ontological argument is false because its premise, It's possible that a perfect being exists, doesn't make sense. He argued that it is logically equivalent to say "it is possible that it is necessary", which means 'there exists at least one possible world in which all possible worlds have this objects in them.' So, according to his analysis, that premise make possible worlds in a possible world, which is absurd and makes a danger of infinite regress. But I think he misunderstood the argument. I think what actually that premise says is "there is at least one possible world that has a object which is in every possible world." I think this is implied when the argument says that "if something possibly necessarily exists, then it necessarily exists." Am I wrong?

In physics, do all particles have a particle-wave duality? And if so, what determines whether they behave as a wave, or become a one-dimensional point in space? I'm familiar with the electron double slit experiment, and it's my understanding that when it's not observed, an electron acts as a wave. But when it's looked at, it acts like a single particle. How about hadrons, like protons and neutrons, that are made of quarks. Even though the are composite objects, can they also behave as waves, while containing their constituents? If the act of being observed has no influence on particle-wave duality, then what causes this property? And how does it ultimately effect our perception of reality?

Some people define some things (which they truly may be or are) Impossible. 'Impossible' has a humane meaning in itself. But... If 'something' is really impossible... then why can you think that? If something is impossible... then why did the neurons in your brain have that thought? It must've been impossible for them to think of something which is not possible.

Hi! I like to know how a philosopher comes to conclusion that a particular thing has an Instrumental value or an Intrinsic value. I read in Wikipedia, in Swedish section, that ice cream has an instrumental value, that there is no end in itself to eat ice cream, but it is good and makes me feel good. Feeling good has an intrinsic value. Is it a matter of on's preference to arrive at that kind of conclusion? Is it possible to say that any thing that is made by human has an Instrumental value.? Thank you for your help! Best regards Alan

If humans are just a bunch of extremely complicated gears working together, how can we have self-awareness?