Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[MrRubix]

Mhs, I'll make my primary point again:

You can NOT disprove anything that we know nothing about. There are an INFINITELY GREAT number of things we could believe in that we have no evidence for with varying degrees of plausibility. You keep coming back to "Well you just assume it's true! You have no proof that my explanation is false! You can never be sure!" This sort of statement shows that you're missing my point. Funny how the very definition of science is one such that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to allow itself to be incorrect! I am saying that, when offering an explanation for a particular type of phenomenon, we can either explain it with a concept we have no evidence for, or explain it with a concept we have evidence for.

For example: Say we lived back in the day when people generally believed in geocentricity for a moment. The Earth appears to be still, right? We can see the sun rotate around our sky, and we can also unveil various aspects of space. We have evidence that this geocentric model is a reasonable explanation for our spatial positioning. However, a faith-based believer might simply think, "Well, I think the sun is actually just a giant light being blasted up in the sky by a Magical Skylight from our Earth." However, I can explain how people all over the world can see our sun rotate around the Earth, and I would also say that we have never found such a skylight rotating around our entire planet yet.

However, both claims are actually suspect! We can then reveal how various movements of stars and planets from our sky (such as retrograde motion) don't make sense with the geocentric model, and we can create a more heliocentric model that makes more sense -- we can also explore space and view other heliocentric systems externally, which are consistent with our own internal observations of our own system. Was the geocentric view incorrect? Yes -- but at least there was evidence for it. Notice how the other explanation was totally arbitrary. I could have made up ANY other explanation for that statement.

Had we had this debate about geocentricism and Magical Skylights back in the day, you would have said "Well, you can't always be sure that you are correct! You can't disprove my theory with such certainty." Sure, I can't be 100% sure that the geocentric model is correct, but it has more justification based on evidence, whereas your approach has no proof or ignores contradictory proof. If you believe that there is a Magical Skylight, then you'd better damn well find evidence of its existence. If you can't, and there is other evidence that provides a much more plausible explanation, then it's not very rational to ignore the counterargument.

Much like this debate, you say "You can never be sure of what you say!" This is missing the point. If you want to take it down to the most basic level, then sure. We can never be sure of what we say. We may even be wrong. But at least we have evidence to back up our claims that are consistent with all other phenomena.

Unlike the extremely simple "geocentric vs Skylight" argument though, in this case, we have a VAST wealth of information that explains various occurrences in our universe... the problem is that God is typically defined in a way that will always be outside of our information. He is like the Magical Skylight that everyone agrees we will never find, but believe exists, even if there is evidence to suggest he isn't needed. Why do we need to hold onto a Magical Skylight argument if we have a bunch of information about the Sun and the cosmos that provides a sufficient explanation? Same thing goes for concepts like Intelligence. Why do we need such an argument when we have a wealth of evidence suggesting natural processes and changes?

And, you're right, I can never be sure that I didn't experience anything before I was born because my memory didn't exist. It's entirely "possible" that I "existed" before I was born and simply don't remember it now. However, there's no evidence for it. There are infinitely many explanations I could give to the unknown. Maybe I existed on a spiritual plane? Maybe I lived another human life? Maybe I lived as a rock and was crushed -- maybe inanimate objects have inherent "life-force." Maybe I was part of the ocean, evaporated, and died. Maybe I was a non-matter energy entity of a parallel universe with different laws. Maybe I was still MrRubix and we re-live our lives over and over and over again. Maybe I was you. Maybe I was an Angel.

My point is that all of these "Maybes" are infinite in number, and we can't disprove any of them. However, I do have evidence that I experienced nothing before I was before, because my body didn't exist (and can be substantiated -- even if I don't remember it, I can provide evidence that I did not exist as MrRubix 24 years ago), and I remember nothing at all whatsoever. I also know that for a machine to work, it has to exist. That is to say, a computer won't work unless the parts of the computer are working together in a way that provide the functionalities of a computer. I also know that, as a human, we can explain all sorts of activities as functions of the brain -- including sensual inputs/sentience/consciousness/even perception. Therefore, I can claim that the brain is a sort of machine that provides these functionalities, and when that machine is either not active or not existing, then those functions cease. This is consistent with my lack of perception before I was born. Therefore I can also postulate that when I die, my brain will again not function -- just like a microwave that can no longer turn on to heat things. Only, unlike a microwave, whose job is to... microwave, my brain is a machine with a greater number of capabilities (including perception and consciousness) that will no longer be "running."

In your argument, though, you assume that we are beings with some sort of "perception separated from mind separated from body" thing going on. Let us define "X" as that external entity from the mind then -- the underlying structure of your black screen perception argument. Again, please answer my question: Does a computer have X? Does a cat? Does a colony of bacteria? What about one single-celled organism? How about a rock? A tree? A drop of water? An ocean?

Do you see the difference?

[Reach]

I don't want to get into this too heavily, but I have a few points:

During your lifetime, you obviously need a physical brain for these functions, but you can't just say that there is nothing before or after this brain. You are absolutely sure that there was nothing before you were born, and that there will be nothing after you die, because you expect a visible proof for absolutely everything.
Why do you assume that everything that exists can be physically proven?

There's a causal link between these functions and the physical brain, which is why we can be sure. Everything you do and can perceive is physically and causally linked to what is happening in your brain. In the absence of a brain then, there is and cannot be any perception.

It is not hard to experimentally verify this, so I don't see what the argument here is about. You can knock out individual centers in the brain to temporarily block someone's perception of a stimuli. Nothing can be perceived without the physical connections in your brain to do so.

To argue that there are other possibilities is invoking magical thinking.

You CAN'T say that a non proven thing doesn't exist like you're doing, all you can do is doubt it.

I can reject it, actually, if it is not testable. There's a difference between something that isn't proven yet and something that can never be proven or falsified because it's untestable.

Two examples to demonstrate:

1. There is some debate over the existence of dark matter and, if it exists as we assume it does, what it is composed of. As such this is an unproven concept; I could doubt it, or believe whatever I want, but ultimately it exists within the realm of reality and can eventually be tested to determine an empirical answer.

I can doubt either position, but I can't reject them because it's still up in the air. Ultimately the answer will come to light eventually though.

2. Joe believes in a universe beyond our own, where there is a magical undetectable planet where a blue hedgehog runs around collecting golden rings in an attempt to stop an evil engineer with a beer belly and an IQ of 300.

I could doubt it, or believe Joe; however, ultimately this is untestable and can never be proven or falsified. As such, rejection of Joe's belief is logically necessary. If you accept or merely 'doubt' Joe, then you are also by logical necessity unsure about absolutely every non existent thing that could ever be thought up or fabricated. Obviously this isn't the case; I'm sure you're not unsure about whether or not Santa Claus exists, so it should be easy to see the logical problem with simply 'doubting' something that can never be tested simply because it isn't proven false.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

My uncle, for example: one night, he had a dream about the ceiling of one of the bedrooms, where his daughter was, collapsing. On the following day, he asked his daughter to sleep in another room, because he thought the dream was a very powerful sign.
On the next night, the ceiling collapsed.

Well, if you consider the possibility that he was telling the truth (everyone knows that the ceiling actually collapsed), will you be satisfied with the explanation that this was just a coincidence? A huge, nearly absurd coincidence?

Well, here's one concept for you: Confirmation bias. If we dream every night, odds are that we will dream about things that do in fact happen the next day at one point or another. I myself dreamed one night that my uncle would call my house, and it happened the next day after a few years of no contact. However, humans tend to focus more on the events that confirm their suspicions than they do events that deny. What about all the dreams you've ever had that have not predicted events? You're merely picking and choosing events that confirm (hence "confirmation bias") your suspicion instead of taking into account conditions that do not. There are also a variety of events that could have influenced my dream (which are numerous -- I won't get into them, however).

Besides, it seems more plausible that perhaps the ceiling was weak to begin with. Was he working on it beforehand/maybe worrying that he did a poor job and that it was unstable, influencing the outcome of his dream/what did he know about the ceiling before the dream? There are many possible influences that would have increased the likelihood of such a dream. Even without any such indicators, such an event can occur through chance alone ("chance" referring to things we model with probability in absence of directly-measurable variables). Every day we are rolling the dice on a countless number of events. We're going to hit improbable events all the time in different spots -- some of them just happen to be more apparent to us than others.

If I had a dream that a monster walked into my friend's room and raped him silly, I'm not going to warn him because such an event is unlikely and without merit. I wouldn't warn him unless there was some reason to. In your case, there was perhaps another external indicator of evidence as to why the ceiling would fall. This seems more plausible to me than "a sign from above."

Either way, I still call confirmation bias.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Mhs, I'll make my primary point again:

You can NOT disprove anything that we know nothing about. (...) Why do we need such an argument when we have a wealth of evidence suggesting natural processes and changes?

Alright. Yes, I understand your reasons. I would probably agree with you entirely (except I would still be an agnostic) were it not for my observer-related experiences and thoughts. It is frustrating, for me, because I can never get people to understand why it is so strong for me, in the first place. That's why I asked you to think about it.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

And, you're right, I can never be sure that I didn't experience anything before I was born because my memory didn't exist. It's entirely "possible" that I "existed" before I was born and simply don't remember it now. However, there's no evidence for it. There are infinitely many explanations I could give to the unknown. Maybe I existed on a spiritual plane? Maybe I lived another human life? Maybe I lived as a rock and was crushed -- maybe inanimate objects have inherent "life-force." Maybe I was part of the ocean, evaporated, and died. Maybe I was a non-matter energy entity of a parallel universe with different laws. Maybe I was still MrRubix and we re-live our lives over and over and over again. Maybe I was you. Maybe I was an Angel.

Yes. I don't believe in a specific "maybe", either.
But I only insisted on this "you cannot be sure" thing because you were actually saying that you didn't exist as if it were an absolute truth. You were using these assumptions to attack the thought experiments even before you tried to find what they really meant.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

My point is that all of these "Maybes" are infinite in number, and we can't disprove any of them. However, I do have evidence that I experienced nothing before I was before, because my body didn't exist (and can be substantiated -- even if I don't remember it, I can provide evidence that I did not exist as MrRubix 24 years ago), and I remember nothing at all whatsoever. I also know that for a machine to work, it has to exist. That is to say, a computer won't work unless the parts of the computer are working together in a way that provide the functionalities of a computer. I also know that, as a human, we can explain all sorts of activities as functions of the brain -- including sensual inputs/sentience/consciousness/even perception. Therefore, I can claim that the brain is a sort of machine that provides these functionalities, and when that machine is either not active or not existing, then those functions cease. This is consistent with my lack of perception before I was born. Therefore I can also postulate that when I die, my brain will again not function -- just like a microwave that can no longer turn on to heat things. Only, unlike a microwave, whose job is to... microwave, my brain is a machine with a greater number of capabilities (including perception and consciousness) that will no longer be "running."

Why postulate this, when you admitted that you can't be sure?
Maybe MrRubix is just less than 0,0000000001% of your entire existence. You really don't have the necessary information to postulate this.

I mean, for example: I will always perceive only matter, with this material body. That's obvious, because they are made from the same matter. Because of this, am I supposed to postulate that this matter is everything that exists?
I'm sorry, but this is just not right.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

In your argument, though, you assume that we are beings with some sort of "perception separated from mind separated from body" thing going on. Let us define "X" as that external entity from the mind then -- the underlying structure of your black screen perception argument. Again, please answer my question: Does a computer have X? Does a cat? Does a colony of bacteria? What about one single-celled organism? How about a rock? A tree? A drop of water? An ocean?

Well, like I said before, you cannot prove the existence of an observer other than yourself. So I just don't try to answer these questions, I can't. I know that I exist, and this is the strongest truth I've ever known. Based on this truth, I started thinking about this one thing I'm absolutely sure exists, and now I have a view of existence that makes more sense, feels more certain, to me. That's what I did. It's not just faith, not just assumptions based on comfort.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Do you see the difference?

Yes. Do you see my point?

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Well, here's one concept for you: Confirmation bias.

Seems reasonable. Of course, I don't know exactly what happened, because it was my uncle's story. The ceiling could be really cracked and stuff.
But I also emphasized how he felt that the dream was a strong sign. I mean, his daughter could die.

It doesn't prove anything, but is an interesting case nevertheless.

[mhss1992]

Reach: Read my answers to MrRubix.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Alright. Yes, I understand your reasons. I would probably agree with you entirely (except I would still be an agnostic) were it not for my observer-related experiences and thoughts. It is frustrating, for me, because I can never get people to understand why it is so strong for me, in the first place. That's why I asked you to think about it.

This doesn't tell me anything. All you're saying is "my experiences and thoughts convince me. I can't tell you why. Just think about it, though." Explain why it's so strong for you -- if you're going to bring up examples like the "ceiling incident," then I'd say those are hardly "experiences" but rather common human misunderstandings of probability/causality/bias.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Yes. I don't believe in a specific "maybe", either.
But I only insisted on this "you cannot be sure" thing because you were actually saying that you didn't exist as if it were an absolute truth. You were using these assumptions to attack the thought experiments even before you tried to find what they really meant.

But I think you're better off going from evidence than pure speculation. You say you believe in an intelligence. That is an example of a "maybe" that is without sufficient evidence compared to all the other examples we have of natural processes.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Why postulate this, when you admitted that you can't be sure?
Maybe MrRubix is just less than 0,0000000001% of your entire existence. You really don't have the necessary information to postulate this.

OF COURSE I can postulate that. Your response is, again, just another "maybe." Like myself and Reach have said, we know there are causal links between various sensory devices in our brains and our interpretation of those stimuli. Again, we can knock out certain areas of the brain and see how behavior/perception changes. There are countless experiments and pieces of evidences to site for this, as there's an entire realm of study for it. If you're going to say "Well you can't be sure!" regarding these functions, I dare say you're being intentionally ignorant. I can knock out a specific part of your brain and kill your sight. I can kill your hearing -- your sense of smell, taste, touch, memory, balance, certain drives, etc. There is a vast number of functions running at once that compose our perception of the world and our thought processes, and they all are causally linked to the brain. Therefore, we can postulate that when NONE of the brain is working, NONE of your perception is working. Otherwise it is like trying to argue that a hot dog is still a hot dog even after I've eaten it and shat it out in the form of massively violent projectile diarrhea. It's like arguing that a computer is still a computer with all the functionalities of a computer... even if I smash it to bits. It's like arguing that a waterwheel still works as a waterwheel on some higher plane of existence when the water has run dry. The brain is no different.

There is no perception without the brain, since your brain is what gives you your perception. I don't see why you are debating this point. Despite all this evidence, you're still saying "Well, you can't be sure!" You may as well say that about everything that we've determined causal links for. You may as well assume that the pursuit of truth is useless because "We could always be wrong." The entire point of the pursuit of knowledge is to learn more about our surroundings and come closer to the truth. To just pass it aside and say "You can't be sure!" is useless and solves nothing. Again, why believe in a "Maybe" when you can take a piece of evidence that gives more information leading to a closer truth? You say "You don't have the necessary information" when you're disregarding other vital pieces of information altogether that give us the ability to postulate something. This is the crucial error you're making that has been pointed out by myself, Reach, Devonin, and others.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

I mean, I will always perceive only matter, with this material body. That's obvious, because they are made from the same matter. Because of this, am I supposed to postulate that this matter is everything that exists?
I'm sorry, but this is just not right.

Now it's my turn to say "You don't know that's right," except this time, you're still making the same mistake as before. Like Reach said, there is no way for us to prove or disprove things outside our realm of interpretation. All we can do is go from the evidence. Otherwise, you're invoking an arbitrary belief that is just as valid as any other random belief.

You're making assumptions that there MUST be this or MUST be that or there MUST be something to our perceptions outside our brains or there MUST be something outside our universe and all the matter it contains. None of this stuff is with any evidence whatsoever. There's no way for us to tell one way or the other. One proposed theory is just as good as another when it comes to realms of the completely and utterly unknown. If you're going to believe in an extra dimension, then why don't you believe in the extra dimension with Sonic collecting rings? Or my Magical Peanut-Butter-Jar-Hand Fairy? It's totally arbitrary at that level, and my point is that an arbitrary belief is infinitely weaker than a belief that is justified with evidence that is consistent and in itself justified.

In epistemology we can say we "know" something to be "true" when it is a "justified true belief." I advise you to check this concept a bit.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Well, like I said before, you cannot prove the existence of an observer other than yourself. So I just don't try to answer these questions, I can't. I know that I exist, and this is the strongest truth I've ever known. Based on this truth, I started thinking about this one thing I'm absolutely sure exists, and now I have a view of existence that makes more sense, feels more certain, to me. That's what I did. It's not just faith, not just assumptions based on comfort.

If that is the only truth you're going to accept, then I dare say you'll have a very hard time making any statements of truth about anything else at all -- because it seems like you'll just say "Well, I can never be sure" even when faced with overwhelming evidence.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Yes. Do you see my point?

Yes, I see your point, but I think on a practical level, you're taking epistemology way too hard to the floor if you're just going to throw your hands up and assume "Everything could be false. Nothing might be real. However, there are all these other explanations without evidence that I am going to believe in regardless." It's a glaringly big contradiction in your own thought process. You're going to say that your own existence is the only truth you hold, and yet you'll, in the same breath, say you believe in a higher intelligence.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Seems reasonable. Of course, I don't know exactly what happened, because it was my uncle's story. The ceiling could be really cracked and stuff.
But I also emphasized how he felt that the dream was a strong sign. I mean, his daughter could die.

It doesn't prove anything, but is an interesting case nevertheless.

It's interesting, but just because something is interesting does mean it's indicative of some external truth. Dreams are generally lousy at doing much of anything -- they're simply residual processes from other processes that occur when we're resting. The fact that he "feels it was a strong sign" doesn't really mean much.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

It's interesting, but just because something is interesting does mean it's indicative of some external truth. Dreams are generally lousy at doing much of anything -- they're simply residual processes from other processes that occur when we're resting. The fact that he "feels it was a strong sign" doesn't really mean much.

Yes, I said "it doesn't prove anything". You don't need to make arguments when someone agrees with you.

[MrRubix]

Well, what are your "personal experiences"?

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

This doesn't tell me anything. All you're saying is "my experiences and thoughts convince me. I can't tell you why. Just think about it, though." Explain why it's so strong for you -- if you're going to bring up examples like the "ceiling incident," then I'd say those are hardly "experiences" but rather common human misunderstandings of probability/causality/bias.

What happened to my uncle has nothing to do with "observer experiences". I thought it was obvious. I'll try to explain my thoughts.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

OF COURSE I can postulate that. Your response is, again, just another "maybe."... I advise you to check this concept a bit.

Ok. I read everything. And I am about to feed your monstrous pride: You're right, I was doing a mistake.

Well, yes, obviously, I know that the brain is necessary. I didn't say that I don't need my brain to live, that would be stupid. And I don't want you to doubt absolutely everything, no matter how much evidence there is, even though that's what it seemed. I don't do that. I've met people who actually do that... People who just doubt everything. They are annoying, I know.

Maybe I've been obnoxious, too. But absolutely everybody is against me, here, and I am unable to truly express the strongest thing that makes me believe in what I do.

But I still don't think you're right about everything: There are situations in which we can and should question the previous postulations, and that's exactly what happened to me.

We should return to the thing that originated this part of the discussion, the black screen thing: You said it wouldn't work because I would be ignoring physical facts, namely, the postulations you mentioned.

There is evidence that perception depends on the brain. We know that. However, when I started thinking about the space where first person experiences occur, I couldn't conceive the creation of this space, no matter how much I thought about it. It was unacceptable.
I considered the following possibility, since it seemed to make sense: While we exist in a space with a material configuration equal to this universe's, we are limited to a brain or similar object that is composed of the same matter. However, we can still not be limited to a single brain, in our entire existence. That's it.

We can now discuss the black screen, if you want to know why I am so convict of this non-creation of the observer. Of course, we can only do that if you allow yourself to question some postulations, like I did.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

But I still don't think you're right about everything: There are situations in which we can and should question the previous postulations, and that's exactly what happened to me.

Alright, then if you think I am incorrect, tell me why. Which postulations have I made that you think are incorrect? What is it about the concept of evidence-based knowledge derivation that you wish to deviate from? Can you give an example?

Originally Posted by mhss1992

We should return to the thing that originated this part of the discussion, the black screen thing: You said it wouldn't work because I would be ignoring physical facts, namely, the postulations you mentioned.

There is evidence that perception depends on the brain. We know that. However, when I started thinking about the space where first person experiences occur, I couldn't conceive the creation of this space, no matter how much I thought about it. It was unacceptable.
I considered the following possibility, since it seemed to make sense: While we exist in a space with a material configuration equal to this universe's, we are limited to a brain or similar object that is composed of the same matter. However, we can still not be limited to a single brain, in our entire existence. That's it.

We can now discuss the black screen, if you want to know why I am so convict of this non-creation of the observer. Of course, we can only do that if you allow yourself to question some postulations, like I did.

What do you mean by "However, we can still not be limited to a single brain, in our entire existence. That's it."? We are indeed, as humans, limited to our physical components. Are you again saying that we are something more than our body and mind?

Why do you assume that creation of an observer is so impossible? I think you're trying too hard to visualize what you "perceive" before you are human, which isn't possible (hence the "black screen"). You're trying to understand how it is you can go from complete nonexistence to suddenly "having a perspective." Again, we can postulate how this works on a physical level.

If the components aren't there, we can't perceive. We are able to perceive the instant the correct components are present and functioning. That is the start of our observation and our existence as an observer. What is it about this concept you have trouble with? Just because you can't perceive what it would be like, you assume it's false?

Your inner mind is really just a bunch of processes -- you have your eyes, nerves, ears, etc all giving you sensory data, like cameras or microphones. You have areas of your brain that associate and store memory, both long and short term. So far, we're really just like a computer. So how come we are able to make choices? Unlike a computer, we aren't "designed" for something else to control us... directly. We have an internal thought process that governs how we access those memories and how we interpret our sensory data -- and this process is our consciousness and inherent sentience.

It, too, is causally linked (this is one of those points where many may disagree, via the hard determinism vs. free will argument -- but there is far more evidence to suggest that we are deterministic creatures). By this I mean, every decision we make is the result of a deterministic process -- if I choose to eat a donut in the morning, for example, am I doing so randomly? Or did I arrive at this decision because of what my other bodily processes were telling me? What decisions am I factoring in? Maybe it's as simple as "I haven't had one in a while," where I may have already come to a conclusion from prior processes that I favor diversity of options, etc. My point is that even our thought processes can be modeled as deterministic. Even emotions, which are hardwired response mechanisms of our brain -- can be viewed as deterministic. When your body gets punched by a random noob, your brain interprets this data and may trigger an anger/fight response.

Even your responses in this thread can be deterministic. You interpret my words, and your internal processing mechanism triggers a comparison between the data you read and the data you already possess (your beliefs), and in turn your brain accesses that data and combines it with your ability to utilize language, which translates your thoughts into words (our brain is basically hardwired for this already). Of course, this is also edited by other processes of your psyche too (maybe you have a predilection for phrasing things a certain way, or maybe you put importance on tact, etc). My point here is that even your "inner sentience" is really just a process.

My other point here is that it's consistent with science and actually easier to understand the human form/brain when you view it as a massively complex computer. We have all sorts of internal processing functions that take in data from our sensory organs -- that's really all our consciousness and perception are. And so it doesn't make sense to think about "what we were doing or interpreting or seeing" before we existed, because our structures didn't exist yet. Our mothers hadn't "built" us yet in the womb.

You may be trying to think of it as "Alright, without my body, where is my true mind? Am I a black screen morphing into existence when I am born as my perception is created?" when it's really "My body IS where my mind and perception is." When you assemble a human, it's not like some external entity/spirit "enters" the body and gives it life, personality, sentience, etc. The sheer CREATION of that physical vessel DEFINES the components that COMPOSE our internal "selves." Before you were born, you were nowhere. Your cumulative "human perception" came into existence once all the individual components "turned on." If you want to think of it this way, think of it as if the birthing process created your physical body, complete with all the necessary components for taking in sensory data. Ears, eyes, mouth, nerves, etc. Purely for detection of data. Then there is the more complex portion of the brain that "interprets" this data internally -- once this forms, you are "perceiving and interpreting." This is where your entire perception springs to existence. And yet, is it still just as causal.

I don't know that the order is in terms of the birthing process, but I'm phrasing it in this way to help explain why the black screen argument isn't sufficient in explaining this -- but the physical component argument is. The order is irrelevant -- the point is that all of these components DO form and once they work together, you have a human perception.

That was a bit of a windy post that was basically stream-of-consciousness dumping... let me know what you think.

[Mollocephalus]

that was a great post, wish i could articulate my thoughts in engrish like rubix.

just replying to one little thing. when you (mhss) try to figure out what originated everything, why do you start from the concept anything had to be originated? as far as we know, the particles that compose the universe cannot be destroyed nor created. they can only change their shape, energy level, and position. beginning/end are human concepts relative to the changes in the environment humanity has experienced ever since dawn of planet earth. but if you were to think about it, that is not correct. when we define something as "ended", we are just creating a construct to better understand and collocate events, objects and situations. the reality is everything translates from a status to the another. life itself is only a temporary status of certain aggregated atoms before they translate back into the natural cycle. by knowing this, it's pretty naive to look for a start for everything, when you can easily experience how things gradually morph into each other. i'm tempted to assume, for consistency, that this may also apply to greater levels. that said, what makes you so sure that universe had to be originated?

your concept of different gods creating each other is just avoiding the obstacle. in such a scenario, where an universe morphs into the other in an endless cycle, god is not needed. in your vision, it's there just because you want it there. it's there because you want to call by that name everything you perceive so out of your reach.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Alright, then if you think I am incorrect, tell me why. Which postulations have I made that you think are incorrect? What is it about the concept of evidence-based knowledge derivation that you wish to deviate from? Can you give an example?

Aren't we talking about the black screen? That was the example I gave. We haven't really discussed it, yet.

You don't agree that postulations can be questioned? Hasn't this happened several times, in the history of humanity?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

What do you mean by "However, we can still not be limited to a single brain, in our entire existence. That's it."? We are indeed, as humans, limited to our physical components. Are you again saying that we are something more than our body and mind?

Well, yes. I told you, that's what the thought experiment indicates, to me. But you are still denying it even before we have truly discussed it.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Why do you assume that creation of an observer is so impossible? I think you're trying too hard to visualize what you "perceive" before you are human, which isn't possible (hence the "black screen"). You're trying to understand how it is you can go from complete nonexistence to suddenly "having a perspective." Again, we can postulate how this works on a physical level.

It's not only about what I perceived before I was born. There are several other thoughts and situations where the black screen can be considered. I will post some of them after this reply.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

If the components aren't there, we can't perceive. We are able to perceive the instant the correct components are present and functioning. That is the start of our observation and our existence as an observer. What is it about this concept you have trouble with? Just because you can't perceive what it would be like, you assume it's false?

No. Well, I guess I just answered that right before this quote.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Your inner mind is really just a bunch of processes -- you have your eyes, nerves, ears, etc all giving you sensory data, like cameras or microphones. You have areas of your brain that associate and store memory, both long and short term. So far, we're really just like a computer. So how come we are able to make choices? Unlike a computer, we aren't "designed" for something else to control us... directly. We have an internal thought process that governs how we access those memories and how we interpret our sensory data -- and this process is our consciousness and inherent sentience.

It, too, is causally linked (this is one of those points where many may disagree, via the hard determinism vs. free will argument -- but there is far more evidence to suggest that we are deterministic creatures). By this I mean, every decision we make is the result of a deterministic process -- if I choose to eat a donut in the morning, for example, am I doing so randomly? Or did I arrive at this decision because of what my other bodily processes were telling me? What decisions am I factoring in? Maybe it's as simple as "I haven't had one in a while," where I may have already come to a conclusion from prior processes that I favor diversity of options, etc. My point is that even our thought processes can be modeled as deterministic. Even emotions, which are hardwired response mechanisms of our brain -- can be viewed as deterministic. When your body gets punched by a random noob, your brain interprets this data and may trigger an anger/fight response.

Did I ever say it wasn't deterministic? I like determinism just like you do. I've even said it before: we make our choices based on what we consider more satisfactory. That is never random.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Even your responses in this thread can be deterministic. You interpret my words, and your internal processing mechanism triggers a comparison between the data you read and the data you already possess (your beliefs), and in turn your brain accesses that data and combines it with your ability to utilize language, which translates your thoughts into words (our brain is basically hardwired for this already). Of course, this is also edited by other processes of your psyche too (maybe you have a predilection for phrasing things a certain way, or maybe you put importance on tact, etc). My point here is that even your "inner sentience" is really just a process.

I will also address qualia again in my next post. "Inner sentience" probably isn't as simple as you think.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

My other point here is that it's consistent with science and actually easier to understand the human form/brain when you view it as a massively complex computer. We have all sorts of internal processing functions that take in data from our sensory organs -- that's really all our consciousness and perception are. And so it doesn't make sense to think about "what we were doing or interpreting or seeing" before we existed, because our structures didn't exist yet. Our mothers hadn't "built" us yet in the womb.

So, you will never allow anyone to ever question this?
When I admitted my mistake, that didn't mean I agreed we should take these postulations as absolute truths. Absolute truth is a really complicated issue, and requires much more than that. Most philosophers agree with that. You should know this.
And, like I said, it's not just about how it was before we were born. You should assume these truths after we discuss these, not before.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I don't know that the order is in terms of the birthing process, but I'm phrasing it in this way to help explain why the black screen argument isn't sufficient in explaining this -- but the physical component argument is. The order is irrelevant -- the point is that all of these components DO form and once they work together, you have a human perception.

Okay, I think you got my point, we haven't discussed the black screen, entirely. Next post... (wait a few minutes. If I don't think I have enough time to post it now, I'll go to college and post it in a few hours)

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus

just replying to one little thing. when you (mhss) try to figure out what originated everything, why do you start from the concept anything had to be originated? as far as we know, the particles that compose the universe cannot be destroyed nor created...

Actually, I said exactly the contrary.

[MrRubix]

Inner sentience actually IS simple. Again, it's merely just an algorithmic process governed by determinism that accesses all the sensory inputs and internal memory storages. Imagine what it would be like to be born without any sensory data whatsoever. No sight, no hearing, no touch, no smell, no taste. Just your inner consciousness.

Regarding the black screen argument, you would then have to agree that there are infinitely many black screens because we can make infinitely many humans. The notion's a little offputting because it's basically no different than the explanation of "infinitely many possibilities" which is really just a function of opportunity and not so much what actually exists -- meaning black screens really may not exist. My point is that the black screen argument is without proof (we can't prove or disprove it), but we do have all sorts of other proof that sufficiently explains what happens when we are born as well as what happens when we die. Trying to understand "what nothing feels like" with respect to creation or destruction of an observer is irrelevant, because we can't interpret "nothing." It's nothing. Besides, would you then say black screens are limited only to humans? Again, I'll bring up my list again: Does a human relate to black screens? A cat? A computer? A rock? A drop of water? An ocean? What dictates such a screen? Sentience? Then why make the assumption in the first place? As far as we can tell, it's entirely arbitrary and no different from any other "maybe."

Again, my point is that we actually have proof to describe what happens before and after death, as given by my view in this thread. We cannot prove or disprove, however, the black screen argument. Could it be true? "Maybe." But it doesn't get us any closer to truth, and it's certainly more complex than the explanation we DO have proof for. We can already explain this phenomenon with the physical argument in sufficient detail that is consistent with any other example we could ever possibly bring up that we also have proof for.

Tangent:
Our entire perception of existence -- our entire domain -- is limited by the time we're alive. This is why I think life is such a massively awesome opportunity. We have billions of years where nothing happens regarding human life -- our atoms just chilling around in the stars in an ever-constant morph, and then poof! For a tiny, tiny, tiny sliver of time out of the universe's duration, we are alive and able to seek utility and happiness before we disappear again into the void of nonexistence. This is why I despise the concept of murder probably more than most.

[mhss1992]

I don't remember having discussed the black screen entirely. The black screen obviously exists, because... We feel it. That's all the proof there is.
Have a little patience... I'm still finishing the text.

[MrRubix]

What? The black screen doesn't "obviously exist." Are you sure your concept of a black screen isn't really just another function of our physical processes at work, here? Again, all you know is what you experience and perceive as long as your brain's active.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

What? The black screen doesn't "obviously exist." Are you sure your concept of a black screen isn't really just another function of our physical processes at work, here? Again, all you know is what you experience and perceive as long as your brain's active.

I said this several times: The concept of observer is real regardless of it being material or not. If you feel the darkness, it is real, obviously.

[MrRubix]

But an observer needs to be material in our universe, as far as we know. Your entire being is material. You've always existed in the form of atoms, but only during the past decade or two have they been arranged in the form of YOU. An observer is only real when it is in the form of an observer. We can't prove or disprove a non-material observer, because no such thing exists in a way we can verify.

I mean, it gets into the question: "What is an observer?" Is the tree observing the grass? No, because it doesn't have sentience or input devices. Does the empty space between atoms observe atoms? No, because no structure exists in the first place to DO any observing. We define ourselves as observers because we have the necessary components and processing necessary TO observe.

Again, you're referring to a concept we can't prove or disprove, because as material beings in a material universe, an observer is also material, since an observer is comprised of material components. We do not "feel" darkness. When we are not in "observer form," we are not observing and thus are feeling nothing.

There is a difference between 0 and null.