Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Metaphysics, intelligence, God (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=113894)

MrRubix 11-18-2009 04:29 PM

Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Just decided to re-kick this into effect just for grins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3291575)
Marcus, I am not a christian. I'm a deist. I've said this before, believing in God doesn't imply in being religious. I just believe in an intelligence, that's all. I'm not creating any dogmas nor anything.
When I asked why you were an atheist and not an agnostic, your answer was that "God isn't plausible", but you never actually explained why an intelligent origin wasn't plausible. It's really not a matter of probability.

And when I asked "what if you are wrong?" I wasn't referring only to this particular subject.

Not why I posted the video. It's just the same response to anyone who asks "What if you're wrong?" There is a difference between "being wrong" even after you have all the evidence and "being wrong" via "being unaware of a counterargument's implications." The former scenario is the best that we can do.

My argument is that intelligence is not necessary to describe anything. Not only that, but the concept of intelligent design shoots itself in the foot.

For complexity to arise via creation, there needs to be a creator even more complex -- but this just compounds the problem. Evolution solves the problem of complexity by explaining how an intelligence is not necessary from the getgo, but rather an emergence of simplicity. We can explain why humans are the way they are. You can take a single-celled organism and show how, given the impact of the environment over time, certain DNA mutations survive more readily than others. This process is slow and gradual for us, but nevertheless it explains how you can take something simple and constantly hammer and change it until it becomes far more "complex."

Earth creatures, in this case, are the result of "necessary conditions." Earth just happens to have the right kind of environment with the right conditions conducive to life and our particular type of being over time. There are likely countless other environments conducive to all sorts of life types. Some of those emerging civilizations will have intelligence, some will not. It all depends on environment, which is a concept applicable to us since life is a concept that depends on environment. We just happen to be in the environment conducive to an emergence of intelligence. There is far more evidence to support this concept than there is to suggest that "something intelligent must have been at the wheel."

The reason I say "God isn't plausible" is because we already have a very deep understanding (with evidence) as to why things are the way they are, and none of those explanations require a God. Usually the people who say "You could be wrong" are likely putting too much weight on that probability. The analogy I like to use there is one of a coin: You've flipped it 100,000,000 times. All heads. A theist would say "I have faith in the tails!" as opposed to the more plausible solution "It's probably a double-headed coin." We have enough to describe things without the need for a God. To truly understand the underlying arguments and yet still put faith in a God is to be putting your faith in an extremely implausible and improbable notion. It'd be like walking out of an airlock in space and expecting there to be air. We know this is silly but only because we understand why. Many people don't understand the "why" behind the question of God versus no God because it's a fairly in-depth concept.

mhss1992 11-18-2009 04:41 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
I need to leave, now, but I'll reply soon.

insanefreddy926 11-19-2009 07:38 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Evolution isn't a counterargument to intelligent design. Just because we understand the processes that give rise to the complexity of life, it doesn't mean we can conclude that there is no intelligent origin.

For the coin analogy, a theist would believe in the tails because the basis of pretty much any religion is that you have faith in something without knowing it's there, which is why it's incompatible with science, and pointless to try to argue against the existence of God to a theist, because it's not relevant. In the same way a theist trying to prove the existence of an intelligence to a atheist scientist is also just as pointless, because there's no evidence they can provide. Personally, I would say that yes, probability shows that it is most likely a double-headed coin, but since we don't know for sure, and probably will never know for sure, there is the possibility of a tails side existing.

And as for knowing why things are the way they are, I would like you to share those reasons, because I for one don't know why the universe exists.

MrRubix 11-19-2009 08:27 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Intelligent Design is a worthless argument because it contradicts itself, solves nothing, and has no real evidence to support it at all whatsoever. Anything you can point to and say "That must have been intelligently designed!", I can point out a wealth of evidence to show that it was caused by a natural process. Again, complexity is not solved by inserting an agent that is even more complex. Evolution is one such concept that IS a counterargument to Intelligent Design, so I am not sure what you're getting at with that claim.

We as humans can "intelligently design" things because we've seen such things before. If we see a book, we know that it is a complex entity that has been created by an even more complex being (a human). There is, however, no evidence to support Intelligent Design when it comes to things outside of human influence, but plenty to show natural processes are at the helm.

I also have to disagree with a few of your points in your second paragraph. An atheist trying to disprove a God is not the idea. The more fundamental question is "Where's the evidence?" We can't disprove any God. You can't disprove Yahweh. Or Zeus. Or the Great Magical Underwater Fairy with Peanut Butter Jars for Hands. Despite the fact that many phenomena previously thought to have been supernaturally-influenced have been shown to be explainable via scientific processes, God is typically defined as something that always moves the goalposts. If God is above science and is always something tucked away above whatever we learn or explain, then how can it possibly be disproven?

To this extent I would say that a belief in "Intelligent Design" is just as faith-based as a belief in God, only a bit more ludicrous because we actually do have proof and explanations that counter it.

It may be true that "We'll never know for sure" even on a coin that shows heads millions of times, but there comes a point when you have to wonder "Why do I believe what I do?" "Am I being influenced through some sort of human bias or am I evaluating things on their merits?" For instance, belief in an afterlife is comforting -- but when does that make it true? When does the universe owe us anything?

I think asking "why" is useless in the context of the universe. "Why" is a concept that only matters to humans. We can ask "why" because as humans we can derive reasons for our rationale and actions. However, that doesn't mean the realm outside of humans as any "meaning," especially since "meaning" is a subjective human construct and described in terms of human utility referencing. For instance, "why" you get married is different from asking "Why did that apple just fall?" A more important question is "How?" Behind any question asking "Why?" is an explanation showing you "How."

In either case, if we were to ask "How did the universe come to be?" there are many concepts out there that serve pretty good explanations, especially regarding quantum physics. The truth is that nobody knows for sure yet exactly -- many think it's nonsensical to ask what came "before" the Big Bang because the Big Big simply was the start of existence. It's a bit tough to wrap one's head around, but again, there's only so much we can explain at this point in time. Regardless, an atheist is not going to assume there is a God until there's evidence for it.

I am personally fine with theists believing in a God, because it's entirely possible that there's some insanely wild truth outside of our universe. But we simply don't know yet -- an atheist will say "We don't know yet because there's no evidence," whereas a theist might say "I just have faith that a 'God' must be at the helm." What upsets me, however, is blind acceptance without thoughtful consideration of the evidence. If someone truly understands the scientific arguments and still believes in a God for whatever reason, that's fine. But I have to furrow my brow at those who simply believe in something as silly as Intelligent Design or misunderstand a fundamental counterargument.

mhss1992 11-20-2009 09:13 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Evolution doesn't imply in the inexistence of a greater intelligence. It really doesn't. But I don't want to debate about evolution being guided or not, because it won't make any difference now and I don't intend to prove the existence of God, in this thread. I just want to discuss the plausibility. I'll talk about "necessity" later.

Well, you said that, for an intelligent creation, there must be an even more complex creator. If we consider other possibilities, there can be many solutions for this.
It's possible, for example, that there were infinite other universes before this one. In this case, it's very simple to imagine an endless "cycle" of creation, intelligent or not.

It makes no sense to consider a “beginning”, as if, before this universe, there was either absolutely nothing or a God that waited for an eternity to create it. “Absolutely nothing” is just absurd, it will never make any sense, and a God that existed for an eternity doing nothing is also absurd. If this universe started to exist after a determined moment, it means that it could have started a billion years later or a trillion years before. I mean, there’s no reason for it to simply start to exist at that moment.

Then, other people can say that there was “no time” before the universe existed, so it couldn’t have begun at another moment. Well, if we consider time as changing events, then saying that there was no time is just paradoxal: For the universe to be created, whatever mechanism that created it came from a change of events as well.

Anyway, an eternal existence with other universes makes much more sense than a single universe that was eventually created.

What am I trying to get at? Well, the possibility that an entity can come from a universe and create another, if it’s smart and powerful enough. It’s just another conception of God, that doesn’t suffer from that “more complex creator” issue, because it can evolve in a universe that was created by an equally complex creator. There are other possibilities I can mention later.
In the end, you always tend to force a flawed view of God, recurring to the religious concepts, but there are other concepts you can consider.

Is it plausible? Well, I can’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be.
Is it necessary? I’ll talk about it, in my next post, after your reply. But being necessary or not has nothing to do with being plausible, I think.

MrRubix 11-21-2009 05:50 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
"Well, you said that, for an intelligent creation, there must be an even more complex creator. If we consider other possibilities, there can be many solutions for this.
It's possible, for example, that there were infinite other universes before this one. In this case, it's very simple to imagine an endless "cycle" of creation, intelligent or not."

This simply doesn't make sense to me. How do you explain, for instance, the fact that our universe went on for billions of years beforehand without us around? How would multiple universes "cycle" to create life?



"It makes no sense to consider a “beginning”, as if, before this universe, there was either absolutely nothing or a God that waited for an eternity to create it. “Absolutely nothing” is just absurd, it will never make any sense, and a God that existed for an eternity doing nothing is also absurd. If this universe started to exist after a determined moment, it means that it could have started a billion years later or a trillion years before. I mean, there’s no reason for it to simply start to exist at that moment."

Saying that "it could have existed a billion years later or before" is not the point though. If the Big Bang is the start of the universe, it is also the start of time. Saying "it could have started earlier or later" doesn't make sense if time begins at that moment, because time, matter, and energy are related. Time can't exist without matter.



"Then, other people can say that there was “no time” before the universe existed, so it couldn’t have begun at another moment. Well, if we consider time as changing events, then saying that there was no time is just paradoxal: For the universe to be created, whatever mechanism that created it came from a change of events as well."

It's a tricky issue for everyone. And I do mean everyone -- nobody has a good answer. Whenever we have an effect, we assume a cause. But a cause in itself is an effect of another cause, bringing us to the question of "Is there a possible thing as an uncaused cause? Is there another way to think about how our universe is structured with respect to time and space?" Time is just a way to differentiate between the state of, say, one quantum event and the next. So, with respect to the Big Bang, there is a concept called the "singularity," prior to the Bang itself. Since time is a property of space, when all space is packed into a singularity, we can say that events at this state can't be told apart by "time," but rather we say that all quantum events occur simultaneously. Regardless, nobody really has a good answer. Equations don't shed much light or give nonsense answers altogether. Nevertheless, an atheist isn't going to assume something without some kind of direct proof to base it on.


Regarding your overall stance on intelligence, read this: http://www.asktheatheists.com/questi...sarily-complex

Plausible? Right now, not at all. There is always that chance that there's an explanation we discover later that says otherwise, but given what we know today, no.

Necessary? Absolutely not. Right now we have no reason to assume a God or higher intellect is necessary to explain anything because we have other perfectly good, scientific explanations that fit.

mhss1992 11-21-2009 07:29 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292209)

This simply doesn't make sense to me. How do you explain, for instance, the fact that our universe went on for billions of years beforehand without us around? How would multiple universes "cycle" to create life?

But I wasn't talking about beings from other universes creating "life", I was talking about beings from other universes creating other universes (and I'm not denying big bangs at all).We don't know what the limits of science are... You tend to center your arguments around life, but life wasn't my point.
Why not plausible?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292209)
Necessary? Absolutely not. Right now we have no reason to assume a God or higher intellect is necessary to explain anything because we have other perfectly good, scientific explanations that fit.

We don't have perfect explanations for everything. For example, why are the physical laws the way they are? Is this the only possibility? Do you think that the configuration of our matter was randomly generated?

MrRubix 11-21-2009 07:48 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
My point is that we cannot ever "disprove" something that we don't know anything about yet. It's possible we can't stretch past our bounds -- much like how an entity in a computer simulation, no matter how intelligent, is not going to be able to tell if there's anything greater than himself (e.g. a human user). It's possible that the universe was created by an intelligence, but I'm simply saying that it's pure guesswork at that point. There's no evidence to suggest the "universe spawning" theory you propose.

This is the main angle I come at with these sorts of things: When faced with uncertainty, there is an infinite number of things we could believe in to explain something. Why bother with that? Why not simply investigate and form our knowledge and belief systems from what we know and from what we can understand? What exactly is the impetus that drives you to believe any one particular explanation that is without evidence?

I say intelligent design isn't plausible because we can explain all sorts of phenomena -- not just life -- as functions of natural processes of the universe. The converging point between all the arguments from any given side, though, comes back to the Big Bang, since nobody seems to have any sort of conclusive idea. And what of atoms? What is the causal linkage to explain why atoms are the way that they are and what causes them to function differently in the way that they do based on their structure? What exactly is a force/push/pull? Despite these questions, I would rather say "I don't know yet," than assume "A higher intelligence must have made it," as this type of reasoning has typically led to faulty explanations. So far we have no reason to believe anything was intelligently designed, but every reason to believe that complexity is bred from the simple in a natural process governed by the inherent properties and components of our universe.

PS: As a general rule, I typically believe that there is no such thing as random. "Random" is what we use to describe the seemingly unexplainable pattern inherent in something's output. We don't say that a ball truly lands in a random spot when we drop it -- it lands where it does because of all the forces acting on it from start to finish. Even at the quantum level, where randomness rears its head from the act of measurement, I am sticking with the "hidden variables" concept simply because I have no reason yet to believe that a process is anything but deterministic.

mhss1992 11-21-2009 09:31 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292229)
My point is that we cannot ever "disprove" something that we don't know anything about yet. It's possible we can't stretch past our bounds -- much like how an entity in a computer simulation, no matter how intelligent, is not going to be able to tell if there's anything greater than himself (e.g. a human user). It's possible that the universe was created by an intelligence, but I'm simply saying that it's pure guesswork at that point. There's no evidence to suggest the "universe spawning" theory you propose.

But I said that in the beginning... I don't want to prove anything right now. I just wanted to show that your arguments against intelligent creation (right now, other than "it's not necessary", which I have my reasons to disagree) don't work against every possible form of intelligent creation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292229)
This is the main angle I come at with these sorts of things: When faced with uncertainty, there is an infinite number of things we could believe in to explain something. Why bother with that? Why not simply investigate and form our knowledge and belief systems from what we know and from what we can understand? What exactly is the impetus that drives you to believe any one particular explanation that is without evidence?

That's not what I'm doing. I told you, I believe in an intelligence, not an specific form of intelligence, because I still think that there are things that require an intelligence to be explained. I believe in science, but I believe that certain things cannot be discovered by pure experimentation. After all, we will always be limited by our senses and our notion of reality... We will always be limited by the part of our mind where the sensations occur.

And this mental concept I was trying to explain... Several months ago, I created a single thread to explain that, in a Brazilian forum. It's easier for me to debate in portuguese, of course. But, still, nobody, not even other deists, really understood what I was talking about (I think some of them might have understood it, partially), because it's not simple. The only people that ever understood this, more or less, were my sister and a friend from college (I can obviously express myself better when I'm talking). I was extremely frustrated, and I tried to consider the possibility that it was just an "illusion". I really tried, but my conviction only got stronger, because nothing else made sense to me.
I've thought a lot, and the only think that makes sense to me is that this part where the sensations occur is more fundamental and absolute than anything else in existence.
I KNOW that this is bs to you. That will only change if I learn to express it better, because those mental exercises weren't good enough.
But you asked what drives me to believe... And this is it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292229)
PS: As a general rule, I typically believe that there is no such thing as random. "Random" is what we use to describe the seemingly unexplainable pattern inherent in something's output. We don't say that a ball truly lands in a random spot when we drop it -- it lands where it does because of all the forces acting on it from start to finish. Even at the quantum level, where randomness rears its head from the act of measurement, I am sticking with the "hidden variables" concept simply because I have no reason yet to believe that a process is anything but deterministic.

Yeah, I agree.

MrRubix 11-27-2009 03:29 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
So what things do you think require an intelligence to be explained?

And, try explaining your thought experiment again.

mhss1992 11-27-2009 12:20 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
I didn't know the forums were back!
lol
Okay, I'll try to explain that again, soon... Just give me some time to try to ellaborate something more clear.
And that thing is the main reason why I believe in an intelligence, or a purpose, yes. But there are other reasons that are completely subjective, like I said in the other thread, in the end (you even said you had similar experiences).

Mousethecat 11-27-2009 05:50 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
There are discussions everywhere, all the time, about things that have no real answer. That's the whole purpose of the discussions.

Metaphysics is particularly vague term. Study of what is with no solid knowledge of the how or why it is. Saying it has no bearing on anything, especially what has been discussed here, is just foolish.

Intelligence is the everything. Knowing what is, how it is, where, why, what it will affect, how it is affected, ect... Any argument that expects to fight against what is intelligent, better be more intelligent than the original.

God is just a made up reason for the impossible to be possible. When something impossible actually happens, there will be perfectly good reason to believe in God.

As far as everything that exists and doesn't. There's a reason things that exist are existing, and there's a reason the things that aren't existing are not. If something has been proven as fact, fighting against it is futile unless the fact was actually false. On the other hand, fighting for something without any proof is putting all your otherwise useful intellect into faith, the belief of what isn't.

Just my 2 cents on the topic. A very good topic. very relevant to my interests.

mhss1992 11-27-2009 06:24 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Okay, let's make this clear once and for all.

I have to ask this, before I start: be open-minded. Try to be as impartial as possible, here. Try to read the whole text and understand what I mean, before you reply. I don’t want this to be another extremely frustrating attempt at explaining this concept.

What is this thing where sensations occur and why is it important?

"It's the brain, duh."

Not in this case. It’s not the spirit, either. I'm talking about something more specific, something that can be considered “the center of the mind”. Whether it is physical or not doesn’t really matter, right now.

And it is important simply because it’s the only thing whose existence is 100% proven. All of the existence that you know is your sensation, obviously. The only thing you know for sure that exists is your mind. Yeah, I know Descartes already said that.

“What does that have to do with God or an intelligence?”

It’s still a bit hard to answer this. But I’ll start with this: Why does it even exist?

If you understand the concept of an “observer” (that’s how it’s going to be called, from now on), it’s just very easy to imagine a universe that exists perfectly without it. A brain can function perfectly without a part where first person experiences occur.

Yes, that probably sounded absurd, “how can a body survive if the brain doesn’t feel anything?”. That’s really not what I meant. Think about a robot: it can detect the environment and react accordingly. But it doesn’t mean it has first person experience. Which means it doesn’t experience qualia.

In case you don’t know this, qualia are the sensations themselves. For example, the color “red”, pain and pleasure. Those feelings cannot be defined or expressed, it’s absolutely impossible. You can’t define “red” because you can’t be sure whether the “red” you feel is the same red I feel. I am not referring to the electric signals, I am talking about the thing that only exists for the person experiencing it. Anyone can detect electric signals in another brain, but nobody can detect qualia in another brain. Why? Because you cannot be the other person. You can never prove that there is qualia in another brain, so you can never prove that there is another observer other than yourself. You just believe it, like I do. Otherwise, you’re a solipsist.

Therefore, the observer is defined as “where the qualia occur”.

Nice.

I’ve said nothing but facts, so far. Now, let’s get back to the “body exchange” thought experiment:

There are 2 people: A and B. Each person has their own thoughts, memories and personality.

You are A.

Then, you suddenly “become” B. That means you now have B’s thoughts, memories, personality and body. Everything that defines B. And B becomes you.

You’re B, now.

You will live your lives normally, and no one will ever notice that there was a change, even though there was a profound change.

It is very easy to imagine, actually. And the simple fact that this can be imagined proves that the observer can be considered an entity separated from every apparent aspect that defines a person.

This thought experiment obviously doesn’t prove that the observer is “immaterial”, all it does is prove that there is an entity that can be treated separately, regardless of it being physical or not. So, saying “A” and “A’s observer” is really not the same thing. That’s the point.

Now, after this thought experiment, a question can be asked, and it can generate lots of confusion: What part of a person’s brain contains “the observer”? And it’s really what screwed up the other thread. I’m pretty sure this can’t be answered, yet.

Before I proceed into other thought experiments, I need to know what you thought of this first part.

MrRubix 11-28-2009 02:05 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Alright, I'll take it all in before I respond.

*read read*

Alright. As I said before in the other thread, you're confusing the concept by totally ignoring certain physical facts and postulating something that has no proof.

I'm not going to bother addressing the points on qualia, which are technically a bit incorrect but irrelevant to my argument (it can be argued that the experiences of qualia can be interpreted in a synonymous fashion even if you are incapable of the direct input, e.g. "What it feels like to see red").

"Then, you suddenly “become” B. That means you now have B’s thoughts, memories, personality and body. Everything that defines B. And B becomes you."

You're already assuming "I" am different from "A" and that I can "become" "B." The difference: "I" *AM* defined by being "A." "You" *ARE* defined by being "B." You're saying that A and B can switch places and have no real changes at all. What are we really changing then? If we have the same memories, personality, makeup, composition, etc, we have not really become different people. It would be like saying "what if you (mhs) and myself (Rubix) were constantly switching places all throughout our lives?" We would never know the difference, but from the perspective of our selves, the experiences are continuous as a result of our memories and faculties.

The only real-world application this has relevance to is the fact that our atoms are constantly switching out. What composes our bones one year may be somewhere else completely years later, replaced by an entirely new set of atoms. If I am riding in a boat, and I replace faulty planks over time, then is it really the same boat by the time I've replaced one plank? Two planks? All? If we switch our physical constructs piece by piece, we are simply creating new forms with each switch. The end result may be isomorphic to the start -- we may start with Mhs and Rubix and end with Mhs and Rubix, but in all steps between, we will have many new forms with each change. If we switch memories only, we are only switching memories. It's like if we had two computers and swapped out their hard drives. They're technically different computers -- same as they were in the beginning, only with a few hardware changes. Likewise, our memories -- our sentience -- our perceptions -- they are all functions of physical constructs that can also, arguably, be swapped out theoretically. So if we were to swap all our parts, I would still be the same Rubix I was in the beginning, and you would be the same Mhs. Again, who we are IS DEFINED by our mind and body's composition at all times.

Now, before you may ask, "But what makes me 'me' and not 'you":

It's like asking "Why is the rock a rock and not a fish?" or something. When it comes to comparing people, the logic is the same. The difference is that we happen to possess physical faculties that give us sentience. We are still physical beings. I am me because my physical components exist in this fashion. You exist because of your physical components. I might like to have been born as someone in, say, another country, but it's nonsensical when you look at it physically. You are trying too hard to assume that an "observer" or "perception" is something outside the physical brain -- there is absolutely no scientific fact, evidence, or even anything remotely resembling a proof to indicate that this is the case. However, we have plenty of evidence to show that everything is in the brain. We are defined by our body and mind's composition -- including our perception, observation, and sentience. Not the other way around.

MrRubix 11-28-2009 07:11 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3292649)
I specifically said I was only trying to explain the concept, and that nothing written there proved that it was immaterial or not. It really looks like you ignored that completely.

What has no proof?

Before the thought experiment, have I written anything that isn't obviously true? What about the part that "it’s the only thing whose existence is 100% proven."? Did you read that part?

I'm talking about an evident part of the mind. I AM NOT talking about spirit, I said that in the beggining of my post. And I am not ignoring any physical facts.

I'm sorry, but the way you finish your answer is just disappointing and filled with prejudice. It looks like you didn't pay attention to anything I wrote, there.

What is incorrect about qualia?



I understand that you're trying to explain the concept and I did not ignore your request, but I'm explaining to you why it isn't a practical one at all. I'm still curious why you believe in a higher intelligence.

Yes, a lot of what you wrote is not true or is a misunderstanding of how our perception works. Again, sentience is a physically-derived concept. Perception is a physically-derived concept. Self-awareness is a physically-derived concept. Consciousness is a physically-derived concept.

I paid attention to what you wrote, but I feel like you really need to understand why I am replying the way that I am. Your entire argument is based on a notion that makes an assumption without base. I feel like you're trying too hard to separate an observer from physical sentience. Yes, you can have a robot, for instance, that is without sentience and merely operates on pre-existing subroutines. We are no different from such robots, except we have that physical sentience in the form of our external and internal sense faculties.

As for qualia, they are not necessarily impossible to describe. It'd be like asking "What does a banana taste like?" Well, it tastes like a damn banana. Regardless, it is possible to synthesize a statistically significant approximation with a variety of other metrics. This includes color. It may also include something like sonar -- what would it be like to have the senses of a bat? Qualia is all about relating experience to sensory input with respect to individual interpretation. The problem is that we can still describe those experiences on a physical level because our brain is a physical object that has the same processing style as any other brain. Given a specific experience, it is possible to replicate such an impulse. Even without the impulse, who's to say that we could not describe what it's like to see a red apple, even if it requires millions of words to fine-tune the experience?

I don't mean to come across as rude -- I am simply trying to explain why the thought experiment technically fails. I'm still curious why you believe in an intelligence.

mhss1992 11-28-2009 07:45 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Ignore that reply, I wasn't very calm. I erased it before you posted this other reply...
Consider this one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292833)
Alright. As I said before in the other thread, you're confusing the concept by totally ignoring certain physical facts and postulating something that has no proof.

I don't ignore physical facts, as far as I can remember... And, seriously, whatever physical facts you're talking about are completely irrelevant to this concept. If I said that "everything is your sensation" and "it’s the only thing whose existence is 100% proven.", does it make any sense to rely on external physical facts?
What if physical facts are an illusion? What if it's all inside your mind?
"Postulating something that has no proof"? This is just absurd. It's the only proven thing... How can the only proven thing have no proof? You need an external proof that you have sensations? Don't you realize this is just paradoxal?

I specifically said I was only trying to explain the concept, and that nothing written there proved that it was immaterial or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292833)
I'm not going to bother addressing the points on qualia, which are technically a bit incorrect but irrelevant to my argument (it can be argued that the experiences of qualia can be interpreted in a synonymous fashion even if you are incapable of the direct input, e.g. "What it feels like to see red").

There's nothing incorrect about qualia.
Being interpreted in a synonymous way doesn't mean that the feeling itself is the same for everyone.
Like I said, a robot can detect things. It can be programmed to detect damage and say "ouch" whenever he detects it, but it obviously doesn't feel the qualia "pain". It doesn't feel dissatisfaction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292833)
"Then, you suddenly “become” B. That means you now have B’s thoughts, memories, personality and body. Everything that defines B. And B becomes you."

You're already assuming "I" am different from "A" and that I can "become" "B." The difference: "I" *AM* defined by being "A." "You" *ARE* defined by being "B." You're saying that A and B can switch places and have no real changes at all. What are we really changing then? If we have the same memories, personality, makeup, composition, etc, we have not really become different people. It would be like saying "what if you (mhs) and myself (Rubix) were constantly switching places all throughout our lives?" We would never know the difference, but from the perspective of our selves, the experiences are continuous as a result of our memories and faculties.

I am not going to discuss the semantics of "I", "A" and "B" right now...
The point is: you can imagine it, right?
If you are able to imagine this change, it means that you have the notion of what an "observer" is, even though you deny it.
It's just about understanding the concept. If I say "two people change observers" and nothing else, it means that the part of the brain, or the spirit, or whatever, that's specifically where the sensations occur, is exchanged.

There's no belief involved, it's a concept. I can say "exchange of observers" with the same freedom of saying "exchange of cerebellum".

MrRubix 11-28-2009 08:23 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
The difference here is that you're limiting the argument to a purely sensational concept when that concept is physical in nature. That's all I'm getting at. I mean, if you want to resort to "What if everything's just in your mind and nothing actually exists," I think that's taking it too far. I mean to say that the "thing without proof" is that sentience is outside of physical construct. If this is not what you're trying to prove in our real world, then what is the point of your thought experiment? What question are you trying to address?

As for qualia, that is incorrect. Check out something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia -- a robot doesn't "feel" pain because it doesn't have the capability for it. You can program it to interpret what pain is, even if it can't process it on a deeper level that doesn't exist physically. A pain experience is a function of our sensory inputs. These sensory inputs can be replicated. Just because we can't explain something with words may not imply that the sensation itself can't be imposed in signal format. Qualia exists only to the extent that input devices put a slight variance on an experience resultant of every and all influencing factors, no matter how small or large.

Regarding your last paragraph, I understand what it would mean to "change perspectives." This could be accomplished by swapping memories alone! My question though: What practical application does this have? What are you trying to solve with that thought experiment? And, again, why believe in an external, higher intelligence?

mhss1992 11-28-2009 09:05 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292878)
The difference here is that you're limiting the argument to a purely sensational concept when that concept is physical in nature. That's all I'm getting at. I mean, if you want to resort to "What if everything's just in your mind and nothing actually exists," I think that's taking it too far. I mean to say that the "thing without proof" is that sentience is outside of physical construct. If this is not what you're trying to prove in our real world, then what is the point of your thought experiment? What question are you trying to address?

Well, I didn't get to this thing without proof yet. But yes, I am very convict that an observer cannot be created or destroyed. Before trying to explain why I believe it, I wanted to make everything clear about this concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292878)
As for qualia, that is incorrect. Check out something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia -- a robot doesn't "feel" pain because it doesn't have the capability for it. You can program it to interpret what pain is, even if it can't process it on a deeper level that doesn't exist physically. A pain experience is a function of our sensory inputs. These sensory inputs can be replicated. Just because we can't explain something with words may not imply that the sensation itself can't be imposed in signal format. Qualia exists only to the extent that input devices put a slight variance on an experience resultant of every and all influencing factors, no matter how small or large.

I have read the Wikipedia's definition of qualia before...

What proof do you have that other people feel, in the first place?
I didn't say anything incorrect... There's a huge difference between replicating sensory inputs and replicating qualia.
You are assuming that the same sensory inputs will generate qualia for anyone, but that's really a belief. You have no proof of that, and nobody has.
There is the concept of "zombies"... Not undead zombies, but people who are just "objects", people who seem to have feelings and normal behavior, but without any true first person experience.

I don't believe in zombies, though. But it's not possible to prove whether they exist or not. (I can' let anyone siggy this)

Every study and conclusion you have of this world will always happen because of qualia you experience. The concept of solipsism cannot be proven wrong, because you can't look through the eyes of another person. So, "What if it's all inside your mind" is really completely plausible, even though nobody wants to consider it.

Understanding qualia is important for this subject, because certain things cannot and will not be proven by pure external experimentation, even though they are real, and qualia are an absolute proof of that. They only exist for the person who feels them, and cannot be defined or expressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292878)
Regarding your last paragraph, I understand what it would mean to "change perspectives." This could be accomplished by swapping memories alone! My question though: What practical application does this have? What are you trying to solve with that thought experiment? And, again, why believe in an external, higher intelligence?

It has no practical application, it's just a thought experiment to help understand the concept. I only talked about this thought experiment again because I thought it wasn't very clear the other time.

But, really, we can live without it. In the end, it just generates more confusion due to my limited vocabulary (or the lack of words to express this in English).

I believe in an intelligence because I believe in a purpose. I am aware of the importance of an observer.
Things do exist without an observer, but they really don't make any difference.

You will argue that "things don't need to be noticed". Well, think about it: a universe without any observer has no image, no sound... It's just like pure, invisible data. A "potential" of true existence. It's just silly to talk about the explosion of a star if everything is just some sort of black screen (which is technically incorrect, since an observer is necessary for a black screen to exist. We'll probably talk about the black screen thought experiment, as well.)
We can compare it to a computer without a monitor, a printer, and any other device that allows humans to interact with it. Just a box with data, processing it and doing absolutely nothing else. It has no purpose.

Yes, this is an entirely emotional reason, but it's extremely powerful. There's also the fact that I can't conceive the creation or destruction of an observer, and this comes from the black screen thing.

The simple facts that such things exist is enough reason for me. I can't rely on physical proof for every single conclusion I have of existence, it's really too much prepotence for the humans to think that the physical world they see is everything that exists. It might not even exist.

MrRubix 11-28-2009 09:26 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Yes, I agree that without an observer, the universe is just a bunch of "data without a monitor." A hard drive crackling with data but no way to access it. I also agree that it has no inherent purpose.

If you can't think of what it's like to create/destroy an observer, think about what you were observing before you were born. Death will be exactly like that.

How about when you sleep sometimes? When your mind basically shuts out for a while, without dreams, without sense of time, and you wake up the next morning? How do you define that "in-between sleeping experience" when your mind was not in any real form of observation? I think that as a living creature, these types of sleeping experiences are the closest thing we've got to experiencing death.

Anyways, are you saying that the mere fact the universe exists is enough for you to believe that it must have been created?

mhss1992 11-28-2009 09:53 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292888)
Yes, I agree that without an observer, the universe is just a bunch of "data without a monitor." A hard drive crackling with data but no way to access it. I also agree that it has no inherent purpose.
If you can't think of what it's like to create/destroy an observer, think about what you were observing before you were born. Death will be exactly like that.

I have no idea what I was observing before I was born... I guess you're just assuming it was "nothing".

But what is "nothing"?
Let's think about the screen. In the formation of your brain, certain neurons responsible for the interpretation of light as images were created, right?
Right before those neurons existed, how was it?
The space which contains the images you currently see... It didn't exist? If it was just dark, the space already existed. Which means that the observer already existed, of course.
But if the space didn't exist... How exactly was the change between the "no space" and the space? Is there such a thing as a "half space"? Can a dimension be created?
For anything to exist, mustn't there be a previous space of some kind?

We've been through this before. But please, try to imagine that.

I sincerely can't imagine that. Trying to imagine this is the only thing I can do, because I don't know how it was before I was born.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292888)
How about when you sleep sometimes? When your mind basically shuts out for a while, without dreams, without sense of time, and you wake up the next morning? How do you define that "in-between sleeping experience" when your mind was not in any real form of observation? I think that as a living creature, these types of sleeping experiences are the closest thing we've got to experiencing death.

Just because we don't know what's going on doesn't mean that we don't exist in the meantime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292888)
Anyways, are you saying that the mere fact the universe exists is enough for you to believe that it must have been created?

The mere fact that the universe and observers exist is enough for me to believe in a purpose. And, for me, a purpose indicates an intelligence, a greater will of existence. Explaining every single thought that makes me feel like that will be a big challenge, though.

devonin 11-28-2009 10:49 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Just a few things to chime in with:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992
And it is important simply because it’s the only thing whose existence is 100% proven. All of the existence that you know is your sensation, obviously. The only thing you know for sure that exists is your mind. Yeah, I know Descartes already said that.

That's not actually what Descartes said. Descartes' conclusion was that all you can know for a certainty is that you, in some form, exist. He makes NO qualitative or quantitative claims as to how that existance might be expressed. He simply is aware that he, and only he is "A thinking thing" That thinking thing may be completely divorced from all sensation, it may be recieveing inputs of sensation that are completely false. It could be experiencing all kinds of qualia that do not reflect its objective reality. All he can claim with 100% certainty is that he, in some form, is a thing which exists.

Quote:

This thought experiment obviously doesn’t prove that the observer is “immaterial”, all it does is prove that there is an entity that can be treated separately, regardless of it being physical or not. So, saying “A” and “A’s observer” is really not the same thing. That’s the point.
So what you're saying is that if we agree with your conception of this thought experiment, that you've concluded a mind/body separation, and that the mind is distinct from the body. But what your experiment is really describing is not a switch, but a copy/paste. You're saying "If I take person A, erase every aspect of their existance as though formatting a harddrive, and replace that data with the same data from person B and then also put that into person B's body, that person will go on exactly like they've always been person B" which is true, but doesn't actually prove what you think it does.

If you were to simply make the swap of data between A and B and left them in their bodies, they would IMMIDIATELY notice the problem because there would be a disconnect between their current situation "I am in body A" and their state of mind "I have the mind of person B" You're describing a system whereby you take person A and make them into person B identically, and then conclude that they'd feel as though they'd always been peson B. That's almost tautological.

Quote:

If you are able to imagine this change, it means that you have the notion of what an "observer" is, even though you deny it.
It's just about understanding the concept. If I say "two people change observers" and nothing else, it means that the part of the brain, or the spirit, or whatever, that's specifically where the sensations occur, is exchanged.
So it seems like what you're getting at, again, is just that the mind and body are not codependant, ie. You could retain the concept of self independant of the physical form you define as your body. Thing is, there's actually no way to test for this, so it's not at all proven, and not at all fact. Descartes said sure, that in addition to knowing he exists, he has no way to know that the existance he percieves through his senses is the objectively correct one, but he certainly can't conclude that it isn't either. For all you know, the mind and body are inextricably connected. Just because you can conceive of something doesn't make it exist. I read sci-fi and fantasy, I can conceive of all kinds of things that don't exist. Arguing that just because you -can- see how that -might- happen, that it being true is "100% proven" is faulty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix
I understand what it would mean to "change perspectives." This could be accomplished by swapping memories alone

Swapping memories would immidiately create a cognitive disconnect because you memories of your body would be faulty compared to the body you were in. But I take your point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhhs1992
The concept of solipsism cannot be proven wrong, because you can't look through the eyes of another person.

It can't be wholly disproven, but there are plenty of compelling arguments to give to a solipsist that shows why their belief is at least highly suspect.

Quote:

Well, think about it: a universe without any observer has no image, no sound... It's just like pure, invisible data. A "potential" of true existence. It's just silly to talk about the explosion of a star if everything is just some sort of black screen
We're observers, you said so yourself. Why does your inability to imagine a world with no observers lead to belief in a higher intelligence, when we've got plenty of observers running around already? Are you trying to suggest that every physical location in the universe -necessarily- requires an observer all the time? For what purpose? There are rooms in my apartment that no observer currently can see. I suppose one could try to argue that I no longer have any way to know for a fact that those rooms even exist, that there is anything behind the closed door that I can see, but I don't believe that this means that in order for my bedroom and bathroom to actually be real, I have to believe in God.

Quote:

There's also the fact that I can't conceive the creation or destruction of an observer, and this comes from the black screen thing.
You have self-defined as being an observer. Being the -only- observer whose existance you can actually prove 100%. You cannot conceive of the destruction of your ability to observe? What if I instantaneously converted all the matter composing your body into a neat little pile of carbon, do you think you would still be observing?

mhss1992 11-28-2009 11:26 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3292908)
Just a few things to chime in with:

That's not actually what Descartes said. Descartes' conclusion was that all you can know for a certainty is that you, in some form, exist. He makes NO qualitative or quantitative claims as to how that existance might be expressed. He simply is aware that he, and only he is "A thinking thing" That thinking thing may be completely divorced from all sensation, it may be recieveing inputs of sensation that are completely false. It could be experiencing all kinds of qualia that do not reflect its objective reality. All he can claim with 100% certainty is that he, in some form, is a thing which exists.

I didn't say that was exactly what he said... It was similar, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3292908)
So what you're saying is that if we agree with your conception of this thought experiment, that you've concluded a mind/body separation, and that the mind is distinct from the body. But what your experiment is really describing is not a switch, but a copy/paste. You're saying "If I take person A, erase every aspect of their existance as though formatting a harddrive, and replace that data with the same data from person B and then also put that into person B's body, that person will go on exactly like they've always been person B" which is true, but doesn't actually prove what you think it does.

Actually, I wasn't trying to prove what you think I was, with this thought experiment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3292908)
If you were to simply make the swap of data between A and B and left them in their bodies, they would IMMIDIATELY notice the problem because there would be a disconnect between their current situation "I am in body A" and their state of mind "I have the mind of person B" You're describing a system whereby you take person A and make them into person B identically, and then conclude that they'd feel as though they'd always been peson B. That's almost tautological.

What I meant is that, even though there was a change, no one will ever notice it. But the fact that this change can be imagined shows that most people have a notion of what the "observer" I'm talking about is.

But I already gave up with this thought experiment. Sometimes, I even lose my own line of thoughts with this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3292908)
So it seems like what you're getting at, again, is just that the mind and body are not codependant, ie. You could retain the concept of self independant of the physical form you define as your body. Thing is, there's actually no way to test for this, so it's not at all proven, and not at all fact. Descartes said sure, that in addition to knowing he exists, he has no way to know that the existance he percieves through his senses is the objectively correct one, but he certainly can't conclude that it isn't either. For all you know, the mind and body are inextricably connected. Just because you can conceive of something doesn't make it exist. I read sci-fi and fantasy, I can conceive of all kinds of things that don't exist. Arguing that just because you -can- see how that -might- happen, that it being true is "100% proven" is faulty.

That's really not what I said. Again, you think that I was trying to prove something when I actually wasn't. That whole exchange thing was just another attempt to explain a concept. At this point, it doesn't matter whether it's material or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3292908)
It can't be wholly disproven, but there are plenty of compelling arguments to give to a solipsist that shows why their belief is at least highly suspect.

I am not a solipsist, but I'd like to hear these arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3292908)
We're observers, you said so yourself. Why does your inability to imagine a world with no observers lead to belief in a higher intelligence, when we've got plenty of observers running around already? Are you trying to suggest that every physical location in the universe -necessarily- requires an observer all the time? For what purpose? There are rooms in my apartment that no observer currently can see. I suppose one could try to argue that I no longer have any way to know for a fact that those rooms even exist, that there is anything behind the closed door that I can see, but I don't believe that this means that in order for my bedroom and bathroom to actually be real, I have to believe in God.

Woah, you seriously misinterpreted a lot of things that I've said.
What I was trying to say is that observers are important for the universe to be "useful", in some way. I was talking about a purpose. I'm not saying that things need to be observed all the time, but I'm saying that, if there were no observers, the universe would be pretty much pointless, like a computer full of data, but without a way to turn this data into something visible and useful.

It's just a personal reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3292908)
You have self-defined as being an observer. Being the -only- observer whose existance you can actually prove 100%. You cannot conceive of the destruction of your ability to observe? What if I instantaneously converted all the matter composing your body into a neat little pile of carbon, do you think you would still be observing?

Since I believe that observers cannot disappear, I obviously believe in spirits, as well.

devonin 11-28-2009 11:44 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

What I was trying to say is that observers are important for the universe to be "useful", in some way.
If you believe that the universe was created for a "purpose" then you aren't a deist. Creating the universe for a specific reason, and making it so that it would work inexorably towards an end point (which is what purposes are, after all) requires a more direct involvement than deism is generally prepared to give.

MrRubix 11-28-2009 12:55 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
"Swapping memories would immidiately create a cognitive disconnect because you memories of your body would be faulty compared to the body you were in. But I take your point."

Of course -- my point though is that if you erased all your memories and replaced them with those of another, you would technically feel as though you had been living another life (nevermind the suddenly "shift" sensation or disconnect). Of course, to emulate the original perspective completely, you'd have to switch out "muscle memory" and any physical differences in the mind that allow for a certain speed/association processing/type of memory access, etc. Obviously, the only way to truly emulate the other person's perspective would be... well, to be built exactly like that person.




"Woah, you seriously misinterpreted a lot of things that I've said.
What I was trying to say is that observers are important for the universe to be "useful", in some way. I was talking about a purpose. I'm not saying that things need to be observed all the time, but I'm saying that, if there were no observers, the universe would be pretty much pointless, like a computer full of data, but without a way to turn this data into something visible and useful.

It's just a personal reason."

This is where I have to step in and ask: Why not judge something by its merits? You yourself say that without humans, the universe is an empty void of data with no observers. I'd agree with you 100% here. There's nothing inherently special or with purpose about the universe. But why does the presence of humans suddenly mean there must be a purpose? Is there any special purpose behind a comet? A supernova? How about the formation of bacteria or single-celled organisms? As humans, we can attach the notion of "meaning" or "purpose" to things because we are able to. We can find an interpersonal relationship meaningful because we associate various concepts/notions/ideas to it that provide some form of utility, which we've evolved to be able to interpret and pursue. Nothing technically has meaning or purpose outside of what we, as humans, define. So if your quest is truth, why suddenly impose an extra variable like "higher intelligence" or "God" when we have all we need to describe things?

If it's a matter of comfort, do you agree that what makes us comfortable doesn't necessarily make it true? A "personal comfort belief" isn't inherently true because we wish it to be.

If a comet decimated the Earth, do you think God would step in and say "Well, poop, gotta rework things now"? What about the notion that the universe was arguably without observers for absurdly long amounts of time before any life showed up? What about the life of dinosaurs? What do you think the purpose of life is? Why do you assume it has a purpose when you've already agreed that without observers, there is no meaning? What does our presence necessitate, and why does it have to be humans? What if the only observers in existence were in the form of bacteria? Non-sentient creatures?

mhss1992 11-28-2009 02:05 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292957)

This is where I have to step in and ask: Why not judge something by its merits? You yourself say that without humans, the universe is an empty void of data with no observers. I'd agree with you 100% here. There's nothing inherently special or with purpose about the universe. But why does the presence of humans suddenly mean there must be a purpose? Is there any special purpose behind a comet? A supernova? How about the formation of bacteria or single-celled organisms? As humans, we can attach the notion of "meaning" or "purpose" to things because we are able to. We can find an interpersonal relationship meaningful because we associate various concepts/notions/ideas to it that provide some form of utility, which we've evolved to be able to interpret and pursue. Nothing technically has meaning or purpose outside of what we, as humans, define. So if your quest is truth, why suddenly impose an extra variable like "higher intelligence" or "God" when we have all we need to describe things?

I never said that only humans are observers... Be careful.
You say "Nothing technically has meaning or purpose outside of what we, as humans, define.". You are just automatically assuming that there's no inteligence other than humans'.
And we don't have all we need to describe things. We only have things we need to describe what we can see. And that's pretty far from "all we need".


Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292957)
If it's a matter of comfort, do you agree that what makes us comfortable doesn't necessarily make it true? A "personal comfort belief" isn't inherently true because we wish it to be.

If it were only about comfort, my conviction wouldn't be so powerful. It's about making sense, and that's what makes sense to me.
Actually, there are several key-questions in my arguments, and you ignored some of them. "How exactly was the change between the "no space" and the space? Is there such a thing as a "half space"? Can a dimension be created?"

There were other like : "why are the physical laws the way they are?What defined that?"

And sometimes you just avoid certain possibilities, like solipsism. You said it would be "taking it a bit too far". Why? Is it any less plausible?
You don't have actual proof that there's anything besides your mind, and you still believe it. How do you justify that?

When you avoid these details, it really seems like it's just a matter of confort, but there are several ideas I can't just ignore, and, currently, what I believe is what makes more sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3292957)
If a comet decimated the Earth, do you think God would step in and say "Well, poop, gotta rework things now"? What about the notion that the universe was arguably without observers for absurdly long amounts of time before any life showed up? What about the life of dinosaurs? What do you think the purpose of life is? Why do you assume it has a purpose when you've already agreed that without observers, there is no meaning? What does our presence necessitate, and why does it have to be humans? What if the only observers in existence were in the form of bacteria? Non-sentient creatures?

Well, since I never centered humans or earth in the first place, I guess I don't have much to answer here.
When I said that there wouldn't be a purpose without observers, I was trying to say that existence would never be complete without observers. It's not about the purpose "we", as intelligent beings, give to the universe. It's really about the fact that the universe doesn't feel itself.

Think about it: if there's a certain secret "color", hidden somewhere in the universe, and no being will ever be able to see that color, what does that color exist for?

Also, like I said, there can be other universes.

mhss1992 11-28-2009 02:18 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3292922)
If you believe that the universe was created for a "purpose" then you aren't a deist. Creating the universe for a specific reason, and making it so that it would work inexorably towards an end point (which is what purposes are, after all) requires a more direct involvement than deism is generally prepared to give.

Well... Every single deist I know believes in a purpose.
And no, it doesn't necessarily requires a direct involvement like that. I don't believe in an end or a beginning, and I still believe in a purpose... Some sort of endless improvement. It's not a very common Idea for purpose, I know...
Well, my purpose (and the purpose of everyone's actions, actually) is satisfaction. I do believe that this is related to something universal.

MrRubix 11-28-2009 02:22 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Since when did I say only humans were observers? I brought up multiple other examples of possible "observers." Other creatures are indeed capable of intelligence -- I am saying there's no evidence of a "higher intelligence." Please read what I said again. I'm talking about the concept of attaching meaning and purpose to things for no reason other than some sort of utility. If you want me to be specific, it's a construct of an intelligent and sentient observer.

We have things to describe what we observe, yes. But why impose a belief that has no evidence? We can't disprove things in the unknown -- including God. That doesn't mean it's worth believing in. There are an infinite number of things we could believe in -- why not simply judge things by their merit and evidence? Like you said, the universe doesn't have any inherent meaning, so why does the presence of observers suddenly indicate meaning? You didn't quite answer that question. What is the fundamental notion that implies meaning or purpose?

As for your other key questions, we don't know yet! We don't know the causal chains/events that led to our physical laws being what they are, or if it even makes sense to evaluate what it means for something to be "before the Big Bang" (but we can postulate simultaneity via singularity in terms of quantum events). My point though is that I would rather say "I don't know yet because there isn't sufficient evidence" than to say "Well, I'm just going to assume there's a higher intellect to explain the unexplainable that just filled in all the gaps." It doesn't really solve anything. It's just a way to say "Anything we can't explain must be explainable through an agent that explains the unexplainable. I will simply call this an intelligence." It's a tautological concept.

Pertaining to your last paragraph, why do you assume that something needs an observer? There are secret "colors" to the universe. They're called radio waves. Microwaves. Ultraviolet rays. X-Rays. Gamma rays. Cosmic rays. We, as humans, interpret a small chunk of that spectrum as "color," and yet there are all sorts of wavelengths we cannot visibly sense (other observer types can, by the way, such as bees). Yet we can show they exist. Regardless, you ask what something would exist for if nothing would ever be able to see it. Why assume it has a purpose? Why do you assume things can't just exist for the sake of existing? Again, the universe existed without observers for eons.

mhss1992 11-28-2009 02:49 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293018)
Since when did I say only humans were observers? I brought up multiple other examples of possible "observers." Other creatures are indeed capable of intelligence -- I am saying there's no evidence of a "higher intelligence." Please read what I said again. I'm talking about the concept of attaching meaning and purpose to things for no reason other than some sort of utility. If you want me to be specific, it's a construct of an intelligent and sentient observer.

Well, you said "You yourself say that without humans, the universe is an empty void of data with no observers.". It seemed like you thought I said that only humans were observers... Never mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293018)
We have things to describe what we observe, yes. But why impose a belief that has no evidence? We can't disprove things in the unknown -- including God. That doesn't mean it's worth believing in. There are an infinite number of things we could believe in -- why not simply judge things by their merit and evidence? Like you said, the universe doesn't have any inherent meaning, so why does the presence of observers suddenly indicate meaning? You didn't quite answer that question. What is the fundamental notion that implies meaning or purpose?

I am not imposing anything!
Do you remember the beginning of the thread? We were discussing plausability. I gave you reasons why I believe in an intelligence, because you asked. They obviously don't work for you, because we don't have the same thoughts.
It's about possibilities. Why do you think that I'm imposing something just because I mention possibilities? Does the fact that I believe in God annoy you?

And I didn't say that the universe has no inherent meaning. I said that the fact that there are observers indicate a meaning. And I'm really not talking about necessarily intelligent observers, I'm talking more about the qualia and stuff, because the whole known existence is the qualia!

I can't explain exactly why I feel like that about the purpose, but it's really strong. It involves the way I see the world and certain thoughts I don't know how to explain, but it's MY reason, I'm not imposing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293018)
As for your other key questions, we don't know yet! We don't know the causal chains/events that led to our physical laws being what they are, or if it even makes sense to evaluate what it means for something to be "before the Big Bang" (but we can postulate simultaneity via singularity in terms of quantum events). My point though is that I would rather say "I don't know yet because there isn't sufficient evidence" than to say "Well, I'm just going to assume there's a higher intellect to explain the unexplainable that just filled in all the gaps." It doesn't really solve anything. It's just a way to say "Anything we can't explain must be explainable through an agent that explains the unexplainable. I will simply call this an intelligence." It's a tautological concept.

But you're not saying "I don't know". You're an atheist. You prefer to believe on the inexistence of things you don't find necessary.
All of your logic would make perfect sense if you were just an agnostic, but you're not.

And, again, I'm not seeking unexplained things to believe in God. I believe in God because I believe in a purpose. And I believe in a purpose because that's what everything in my life has led me to believing.

And because I still think it's impossible for an observer to appear or disappear. Because, as far as I can think, it's impossible for a dimension to start existing... Discussing this superficially won't help anything. I tried to start talking about the black screen and why I think it's inexistence is impossible, but you didn't really try to answer those questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293018)
Pertaining to your last paragraph, why do you assume that something needs an observer? There are secret "colors" to the universe. They're called radio waves. Microwaves. Ultraviolet rays. X-Rays. Gamma rays. Cosmic rays. We, as humans, interpret a small chunk of that spectrum as "color," and yet there are all sorts of wavelengths we cannot visibly sense (other observer types can, by the way, such as bees). Yet we can show they exist. Regardless, you ask what something would exist for if nothing would ever be able to see it. Why assume it has a purpose? Why do you assume things can't just exist for the sake of existing? Again, the universe existed without observers for eons.

The color thing was just... Never mind. A rushed example.

mhss1992 11-28-2009 03:04 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Also, I'd like to hear your answer:
"sometimes you just avoid certain possibilities, like solipsism. You said it would be "taking it a bit too far". Why? Is it any less plausible?
You don't have actual proof that there's anything besides your mind, and you still believe it. How do you justify that?"

MrRubix 11-28-2009 03:59 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
"I said that the fact that there are observers indicate a meaning." Okay but WHY do you believe this? What is the link between the presence of observers and meaning/purpose? Do you agree that meaning is purely an intellectualized concept? Why do you assume something can't exist for the sake of existing?

Re: your second point, of course I am saying "I don't know" when it comes to the "causality" of our universe's form. How is this incompatible with an atheist mindset? Just because I say "I don't know" to something doesn't automatically mean I'm "agnostic," especially if the point in question is completely separate from the concept of God.

Your black screen analogy fails because you're, again, making assumptions that need not be assumed -- you're causing your own problems here. You approach a given problem with a certain set of axioms that may not be true. Throw away the screen analogy for a moment and consider the notion that a sentient perspective -- an observer's viewframe -- is entirely dependent on the physical functions. The perspective does not exist when your physical faculties do not exist. Your view of what a "perspective" is or the notion of a sentience "being unable to be created or destroyed" needs revamping imo. This has nothing to do with belief in God but a pure function of physical condition.

mhss1992 11-28-2009 04:43 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293073)
"I said that the fact that there are observers indicate a meaning." Okay but WHY do you believe this? What is the link between the presence of observers and meaning/purpose? Do you agree that meaning is purely an intellectualized concept? Why do you assume something can't exist for the sake of existing?

Intellectualized concepts don't come out of nowhere.

Why did you only quote the beggining? I also said "And I'm really not talking about necessarily intelligent observers, I'm talking more about the qualia and stuff, because the whole known existence is the qualia!

I can't explain exactly why I feel like that about the purpose, but it's really strong. It involves the way I see the world and certain thoughts I don't know how to explain, but it's MY reason, I'm not imposing it."

I believe this "qualia" stuff because I thought a lot about it and it just has shown to be extremely important. A universe without observer means a universe without qualia, and, to me, that's an incomplete existence. That's how it feels.

I never assumed that things can't exist for the sake of existing. But I just don't believe that's the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293073)
Re: your second point, of course I am saying "I don't know" when it comes to the "causality" of our universe's form. How is this incompatible with an atheist mindset? Just because I say "I don't know" to something doesn't automatically mean I'm "agnostic," especially if the point in question is completely separate from the concept of God.

So, why exactly is an intelligence a bad explanation to why the universe is the way it is?
Isn't it a possibility? What exactly makes an intelligence less plausible, other than just "it's not necessary"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293073)
Your black screen analogy fails because you're, again, making assumptions that need not be assumed -- you're causing your own problems here. You approach a given problem with a certain set of axioms that may not be true. Throw away the screen analogy for a moment and consider the notion that a sentient perspective -- an observer's viewframe -- is entirely dependent on the physical functions. The perspective does not exist when your physical faculties do not exist. Your view of what a "perspective" is or the notion of a sentience "being unable to be created or destroyed" needs revamping imo. This has nothing to do with belief in God but a pure function of physical condition.

You say it fails, but you didn't give any reason why it fails. You just said I made assumptions that don't need to be made.

What is that supposed to mean?
I thought the reason was clear: I can't imagine the creation of a space. I can't conceive it. I think about it all the time, and it only feels more absurd.
Why am I supposed to give up on this if there's nothing wrong with it?

Saying that it "is entirely dependent on the physical functions" feels like saying "spirits don't exist, because the mind depends only on the brain". That's just an empty argument. You're assuming that spirits don't exist for absolutely no reason.

mhss1992 11-28-2009 04:43 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
And why are you ignoring that solipsism question?

MrRubix 11-28-2009 05:58 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
When it comes to an unknown concept, you can impose any given number of "possible explanations." But the onus is always on you to defend why you believe in something. My beliefs come from evidence. Yours do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293089)
Intellectualized concepts don't come out of nowhere.

Why did you only quote the beggining? I also said "And I'm really not talking about necessarily intelligent observers, I'm talking more about the qualia and stuff, because the whole known existence is the qualia!

I can't explain exactly why I feel like that about the purpose, but it's really strong. It involves the way I see the world and certain thoughts I don't know how to explain, but it's MY reason, I'm not imposing it."

I believe this "qualia" stuff because I thought a lot about it and it just has shown to be extremely important. A universe without observer means a universe without qualia, and, to me, that's an incomplete existence. That's how it feels.

Of course that is "how it feels" because that's what qualia IS. Qualia is typically defined as as ineffable experience -- "what something feels like." It's like asking what "red" feels like, as you said. However, a universe without an observer means nothing. What about a universe without computers? What if computers had sentience? Aren't we really just sentient biological machines? I urge you to reconsider what it truly means to be an observer and whether or not it's a necessary condition for existence. Intellectualized concepts come from intellect. And, as far as we know, we're the most intelligent species around.


Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293089)
I never assumed that things can't exist for the sake of existing. But I just don't believe that's the case.

Okay, but why? You still haven't answered why you believe this. You keep going in this circle of "Claim A" -> "Unrelated Claim B" = "Explanation." It'd be like if I said "Well, this chick refuses to go out with me -- therefore pizza must be hotter when I put it in the oven." Your assumptions and conclusions don't have much linkage -- you assume intelligence without any evidence. "It may be possible" is not a rigorous explanation.



Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293089)
So, why exactly is an intelligence a bad explanation to why the universe is the way it is?
Isn't it a possibility? What exactly makes an intelligence less plausible, other than just "it's not necessary"?

ANYTHING is a "possibility." This is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a popular concept, or the teapot in space, or the tooth fairy. There are infinitely many "possible" truths that lie within the shroud of the unknown. How can we ever disprove something if we know nothing about it? How can we disprove a God that, by its very definition, is outside the realm of science, space, and time? It's defined by many in such a way that it simply cannot be disproven. It's a slap in the face to science, and science is a slap in the face to religion. The two are highly corrosive to one another. Intelligence is a bad explanation because we have no evidence for it. We can explain many things about our universe without the need for a higher-level designer. Why assume that God is freezing your balls off when it's really just the cold snow outside and the slow-moving molecules screwing away at your heat distributions? Why impose a variable or explanation that adds no fundamental understanding?



Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293089)
You say it fails, but you didn't give any reason why it fails. You just said I made assumptions that don't need to be made.

Well, you set it up in a way to where you say "Because this is how I've set up my thought experiment, I can't possibly see how an observer can be created or destroyed. Therefore there must be a higher intelligence or purpose," or something to this effect. You always need to evaluate your axioms and underlying structures of interpretation and check to see if they make sense. In this case they do not -- the "black screen" argument sheds light on nothing and only hinders alternative explanations, namely, the right ones. A perspective can be created. A perspective can be destroyed. We know this because perspectives are physically-derived, and when physical things stop working, their functions also cease.[/quote]


Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293089)
I thought the reason was clear: I can't imagine the creation of a space. I can't conceive it. I think about it all the time, and it only feels more absurd.
Why am I supposed to give up on this if there's nothing wrong with it?

Saying that it "is entirely dependent on the physical functions" feels like saying "spirits don't exist, because the mind depends only on the brain". That's just an empty argument. You're assuming that spirits don't exist for absolutely no reason.

We can't imagine the creation of a space because our existence depends on that space, much like how we can't technically invision nonexistence (before we were born, after we die), because there was simply nothing. That's what nothing feels like. Nothing.

My last argument you cited is most certainly NOT an empty argument. You're saying "your argument holds no water even if you have evidence, because you can't disprove something that has no evidence"? That's absurd, mhs. We can say perspective is dependent on the physical brain because we can explain how various parts of the brain contribute to our sensory perception and interpretive processes. We have EVIDENCE for this. There is, however, NO evidence that -- despite what we know about the physical composition of the brain -- there is some sort of "soul" superimposed onto everything else that somehow proves the "true" source of perception. How do souls process during birth then? What, do they join in with the Okazaki fragments? Do bacteria have souls? Do animals? Does a robot with sentience? Does a robot without sentience? Does a rock? What about a puddle of water? An ocean? Surely you can see the problem here.

mhss1992 11-28-2009 07:41 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293121)
When it comes to an unknown concept, you can impose any given number of "possible explanations." But the onus is always on you to defend why you believe in something. My beliefs come from evidence. Yours do not.

Evidence? Is that so? You still didn't answer the solipsism question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293121)
Of course that is "how it feels" because that's what qualia IS. Qualia is typically defined as as ineffable experience -- "what something feels like." It's like asking what "red" feels like, as you said. However, a universe without an observer means nothing. What about a universe without computers? What if computers had sentience? Aren't we really just sentient biological machines? I urge you to reconsider what it truly means to be an observer and whether or not it's a necessary condition for existence. Intellectualized concepts come from intellect. And, as far as we know, we're the most intelligent species around.

When I said "that's how it feels" I was referring to existence being incomplete without an observer, not the qualia themselves... That would be a bit weird.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293121)
Okay, but why? You still haven't answered why you believe this. You keep going in this circle of "Claim A" -> "Unrelated Claim B" = "Explanation." It'd be like if I said "Well, this chick refuses to go out with me -- therefore pizza must be hotter when I put it in the oven." Your assumptions and conclusions don't have much linkage -- you assume intelligence without any evidence. "It may be possible" is not a rigorous explanation.

Hey... I explained my reason for believing in a purpose several times. I said that most of it was due to thoughts and experiences that are too hard to express. And I know my thoughts well enough to know that the affirmations I make are not unrelated. I'd try to explain them better, if I thought it would make any difference.



Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293121)
Well, you set it up in a way to where you say "Because this is how I've set up my thought experiment, I can't possibly see how an observer can be created or destroyed. Therefore there must be a higher intelligence or purpose," or something to this effect. You always need to evaluate your axioms and underlying structures of interpretation and check to see if they make sense. In this case they do not -- the "black screen" argument sheds light on nothing and only hinders alternative explanations, namely, the right ones. A perspective can be created. A perspective can be destroyed. We know this because perspectives are physically-derived, and when physical things stop working, their functions also cease.

Did you even try to think about the black screen thing? It looks like you didn't. You say it doesn't make sense, but you never gave an actual reason.
You are just saying things as if you were absolutely sure of them, but they are still beliefs. You can't say that your perspective will be destroyed, because you didn't die.
Saying that a perspective can be created and destroyed is just too easy. But if you actually tried to spend some hours thinking about it in a completely unbiased, neutral way, perhaps you would also start to think it doesn't make sense to believe that.

I know exactly what I mean by "observer", and I try to think: in what moment, in the creation of the brain, this "first person perspective" is born? Is it a gradual process?

The more I think, the more absurd it feels. Then, you can say that I am just fooling myself... But maybe you should also try to understand my thoughts. Try to see this for yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293121)
We can't imagine the creation of a space because our existence depends on that space, much like how we can't technically invision nonexistence (before we were born, after we die), because there was simply nothing. That's what nothing feels like. Nothing.

You are saying these things as if you were sure, again, even though there's no evidence.
Don't you see how unfair you are?
There are certain things without evidence you choose to believe, and other things you simply deny because there is no evidence. Can't you be a bit more neutral?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293121)
My last argument you cited is most certainly NOT an empty argument. You're saying "your argument holds no water even if you have evidence, because you can't disprove something that has no evidence"? That's absurd, mhs...

What you did was just completely deny everything that is not proven, unless it's convenient to you (solipsism question, again). Seriously, you can't just deny such things as afterlife, because there will never be material proof of this. I can mention thousands of very interesting reincarnation-related experiences of thousands of people, but you will probably automatically think that they are all fake. But some of them are very interesting, believe me.

MrRubix 11-28-2009 08:50 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293158)
Evidence? Is that so? You still didn't answer the solipsism question.

Yes. Evidence. As for solipsism, I echo Devonin. It's one of those unprovable concepts that are nevertheless suspect.



Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293158)
When I said "that's how it feels" I was referring to existence being incomplete without an observer, not the qualia themselves... That would be a bit weird.

Why do you assume existence is only complete with an observer? Again, why can't things exist for the sake of existing? Again, the universe went on for eons without any observers.



Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293158)
Hey... I explained my reason for believing in a purpose several times. I said that most of it was due to thoughts and experiences that are too hard to express. And I know my thoughts well enough to know that the affirmations I make are not unrelated. I'd try to explain them better, if I thought it would make any difference.

Well, ****, how are we supposed to debate this if your response is "I just do, can't explain it, sorry." What link is there between a human emotional response/experience/thought and some higher truth pertaining to purpose outside of the necessity of an observer?





Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293158)
Did you even try to think about the black screen thing? It looks like you didn't. You say it doesn't make sense, but you never gave an actual reason.
You are just saying things as if you were absolutely sure of them, but they are still beliefs. You can't say that your perspective will be destroyed, because you didn't die.
Saying that a perspective can be created and destroyed is just too easy. But if you actually tried to spend some hours thinking about it in a completely unbiased, neutral way, perhaps you would also start to think it doesn't make sense to believe that.

Of course I tried to think about it. My response to you is a more accurate view given what evidence we already have about the notion. The black screen concept only makes sense if you ignore certain physical fundamentals of what composes a perspective in the first place. It's another "thought concept" that falls victim to the same issue we explored earlier when you tried to separate perspective from the mind. It's a concept that makes sense if we impose a bunch of assumptions without merit. The issue is that it creates more problems than it solves, whereas there are other more plausible explanations that make sense and solve these problems.



Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293158)
I know exactly what I mean by "observer", and I try to think: in what moment, in the creation of the brain, this "first person perspective" is born? Is it a gradual process?

The more I think, the more absurd it feels. Then, you can say that I am just fooling myself... But maybe you should also try to understand my thoughts. Try to see this for yourself.

Your first person perspective is a combination of various brain functions. Your perspective forms just as your mental faculties form. I don't personally know if it's gradual or instant -- it's irrelevant. At some point, your first possible sensory input or your first experience as a sentient being is nevertheless an instantaneous thing. The moment the hardware exists and the moment it starts to get stimulated is the moment in which you gain your perspective. Anything outside of that is nothingness because the physical constructs don't exist and function. Let me ask you: What do you perceive from the tree in your yard? Nothing, right? Because the physical construct doesn't exist. You aren't connected to the tree in such a way that you can perceive sense through it. Just take that concept to your physical self. When your physical functions fail, you are no longer sensing. This conclusion is much more plausible and easily understood -- especially since you've already gone through nonexistence for billions of years already. Literally.



Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293158)
You are saying these things as if you were sure, again, even though there's no evidence.
Don't you see how unfair you are?
There are certain things without evidence you choose to believe, and other things you simply deny because there is no evidence. Can't you be a bit more neutral?

None of my explanations are hardly unfair -- they ALL derive from evidence. I can make a more valid assumption what death will be like because I can make these assumptions:

1. Before I was born, I experienced nothing. I had no perception, memory, consciousness, etc.
2. This was because my mental functions were not existent/not functional.
3. While I am alive, I can use my mental functions.
4. When I die, this will mean my mental functions will again not function or exist.
5. Therefore, I can assume that death will be of the same experience, as it is the same causal link: No mental functions -- no experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293158)
What you did was just completely deny everything that is not proven, unless it's convenient to you (solipsism question, again). Seriously, you can't just deny such things as afterlife, because there will never be material proof of this. I can mention thousands of very interesting reincarnation-related experiences of thousands of people, but you will probably automatically think that they are all fake. But some of them are very interesting, believe me.

Again, you miss my point. There are SO many possibilities when it comes to the unknown. But you may as well use evidence instead of postulating a theory that is without any proof whatsoever. There is absolutely zero proof for an afterlife. It's a comforting notion, since we, as humans, place inherent meaning on life (as we've evolved to do so) and the ability to perceive utility, but that doesn't mean an afterlife exists because we want to believe in one. What evidence exists?

There have been no "reincarnation-related" experiences or "visits from God" that have been with any credence whatsoever. Some Americans, for instance, claim they've seen Jesus -- if you had been born in early Greece, you'd be saying the same thing about Zeus. There's always a logical explanation. I feel like people need to understand that emotion doesn't imply truth. What about those mystics that have taken hallucinogens and then claim to have seen God? You'd think those damn hallucinogens should share SOME of the credit. :P What about those intensely emotional moments when people claim to have some sort of religious revelation? Nevermind the social and emotional activities that tend to kick in under extreme duress that may lead one to believe they've had such an "experience." "Religious experiences" have always been utter BS.

There's a very good reason why you rarely hear of a rational atheist who claims to have had a religious experience. They're at least honest enough to logically and rationally assess their experiences instead of just assuming it was something supernatural.

mhss1992 11-29-2009 07:07 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293184)
Yes. Evidence. As for solipsism, I echo Devonin. It's one of those unprovable concepts that are nevertheless suspect.

Yes, and, like I said, I am not a solipsist. But none of you gave any arguments as to why it is so suspect.

I'm just using the same arguments you use. There's no evidence that anything besides your mind exists, but you believe it. And you believe it because, in your lifetime, you've learned that the only truth comes from experimentation with material, visible things. That's the obvious first impression everybody has about the world, and you discard anything that doesn't fit this obvious first impression.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293184)
Well, ****, how are we supposed to debate this if your response is "I just do, can't explain it, sorry." What link is there between a human emotional response/experience/thought and some higher truth pertaining to purpose outside of the necessity of an observer?

It's more like I don't want to, because it will be very time consuming to ellaborate the text and a huge waste of time, like everything else in this thread. No matter what I say, you will always conclude that you will be right before you read it. I'd rather no longer debate about my reasons to believe in a purpose, for now. Maybe later, if I find it worthwhile.

And, before you think I'm afraid, that's not the reason. It's just difficult.

Why did you create this thread? To try to convince me? You should know that this is extremely hard, for both sides.
If you wanted to have a simple discussion, why are you so angry?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293184)
Of course I tried to think about it. My response to you is a more accurate view given what evidence we already have about the notion. The black screen concept only makes sense if you ignore certain physical fundamentals of what composes a perspective in the first place. It's another "thought concept" that falls victim to the same issue we explored earlier when you tried to separate perspective from the mind. It's a concept that makes sense if we impose a bunch of assumptions without merit. The issue is that it creates more problems than it solves, whereas there are other more plausible explanations that make sense and solve these problems.

Your first person perspective is a combination of various brain functions. Your perspective forms just as your mental faculties form. I don't personally know if it's gradual or instant -- it's irrelevant. At some point, your first possible sensory input or your first experience as a sentient being is nevertheless an instantaneous thing. The moment the hardware exists and the moment it starts to get stimulated is the moment in which you gain your perspective. Anything outside of that is nothingness because the physical constructs don't exist and function. Let me ask you: What do you perceive from the tree in your yard? Nothing, right? Because the physical construct doesn't exist. You aren't connected to the tree in such a way that you can perceive sense through it. Just take that concept to your physical self. When your physical functions fail, you are no longer sensing. This conclusion is much more plausible and easily understood -- especially since you've already gone through nonexistence for billions of years already. Literally.

Well, in summary, what you're doing is saying "you're wrong, because you're wrong."
There are several things you treat as absolute truths to make your arguments, and you shouldn't. 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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293184)
None of my explanations are hardly unfair -- they ALL derive from evidence. I can make a more valid assumption what death will be like because I can make these assumptions:

1. Before I was born, I experienced nothing. I had no perception, memory, consciousness, etc.
2. This was because my mental functions were not existent/not functional.
3. While I am alive, I can use my mental functions.
4. When I die, this will mean my mental functions will again not function or exist.
5. Therefore, I can assume that death will be of the same experience, as it is the same causal link: No mental functions -- no experience.

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. The only proven point there is 3.
Don't you understand that inexistence requires just as much proof as existence? You CAN'T say that a non proven thing doesn't exist like you're doing, all you can do is doubt it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293184)
Again, you miss my point. There are SO many possibilities when it comes to the unknown. But you may as well use evidence instead of postulating a theory that is without any proof whatsoever. There is absolutely zero proof for an afterlife. It's a comforting notion, since we, as humans, place inherent meaning on life (as we've evolved to do so) and the ability to perceive utility, but that doesn't mean an afterlife exists because we want to believe in one. What evidence exists?

There have been no "reincarnation-related" experiences or "visits from God" that have been with any credence whatsoever. Some Americans, for instance, claim they've seen Jesus -- if you had been born in early Greece, you'd be saying the same thing about Zeus. There's always a logical explanation. I feel like people need to understand that emotion doesn't imply truth. What about those mystics that have taken hallucinogens and then claim to have seen God? You'd think those damn hallucinogens should share SOME of the credit. :P What about those intensely emotional moments when people claim to have some sort of religious revelation? Nevermind the social and emotional activities that tend to kick in under extreme duress that may lead one to believe they've had such an "experience." "Religious experiences" have always been utter BS.

There's a very good reason why you rarely hear of a rational atheist who claims to have had a religious experience. They're at least honest enough to logically and rationally assess their experiences instead of just assuming it was something supernatural.

Well, you asked what evidence exists, and you just discarded every attempt for an evidence. You assumed everything was fake, even though you don't know most of the experiences I was talking about. You can try to google it. There's really a lot of BS, but there are also interesting ones.

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?

devonin 11-29-2009 10:32 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Yes, and, like I said, I am not a solipsist. But none of you gave any arguments as to why it is so suspect.
Because it wasn't relevent to the discussion at hand. None of us are solipsists, it was mentioned only in passing as another potential worldview, and one you claimed was an unfalsifiable claim. I merely suggested that while it may be unfalsifiable in the strict sense, that it still has many issues. What those issues are don't really matter to the subject at hand.

Quote:

I'd rather no longer debate about my reasons to believe in a purpose, for now. Maybe later, if I find it worthwhile.
Alright, then back out of the thread and stop posting in it? Rubix made this thread (properly, I may add) because this was a discussion that was brewing but in a thread where it was not appropriate. If you no longer want to continue the discussion, that's fine.

Quote:

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?
He was there, with introspective access to his own mind, when it started to function in a way that demonstrates it was both recieveing and processing inputs in a way that allowed those inputs to become attached to meanings. He is sure that he wasn't percieveing anything before he was born because HE WASN'T PERCEIVING ANYTHING BEFORE HE WAS BORN. Sure, you can say "But maybe" and suggest some other thing he couldn't perceive was nevertheless going on, and then you can say "but maybe" and suggest some other thing might continue to happen after death, but what Rubix is saying is "I have evidence of A and no evidence of B, thus I prefer to believe A over B" and you are saying "Even without evidence of B, or at least, with much less strenuous evidence for B, I prefer to believe B over A" And while you're absolutely allowed to do that, that's faith.

mhss1992 11-29-2009 12:20 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3293499)
Because it wasn't relevent to the discussion at hand. None of us are solipsists, it was mentioned only in passing as another potential worldview, and one you claimed was an unfalsifiable claim. I merely suggested that while it may be unfalsifiable in the strict sense, that it still has many issues. What those issues are don't really matter to the subject at hand.

I made a parallel between solipsism and atheism, even though they apparently have nothing to do with the other. It's about not believing in or denying something that isn't proven, even though it is possible. I just wanted to know how he justified the belief in non-solipsism, considering his reasons for being an atheist.

It may sound like a very forced argument, but only because people have the natural idea that solipsism is absurd. It's just common sense, and common sense isn't necessarily right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3293499)
Alright, then back out of the thread and stop posting in it? Rubix made this thread (properly, I may add) because this was a discussion that was brewing but in a thread where it was not appropriate. If you no longer want to continue the discussion, that's fine.

I was saying that I didn't want to talk about my personal reasons for believing in a purpose, specifically, because I didn't think it would be productive. There are still many things we can talk about, but none of you seem to be very tolerant with people you disagree with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3293499)
He was there, with introspective access to his own mind, when it started to function in a way that demonstrates it was both recieveing and processing inputs in a way that allowed those inputs to become attached to meanings. He is sure that he wasn't percieveing anything before he was born because HE WASN'T PERCEIVING ANYTHING BEFORE HE WAS BORN. Sure, you can say "But maybe" and suggest some other thing he couldn't perceive was nevertheless going on, and then you can say "but maybe" and suggest some other thing might continue to happen after death, but what Rubix is saying is "I have evidence of A and no evidence of B, thus I prefer to believe A over B" and you are saying "Even without evidence of B, or at least, with much less strenuous evidence for B, I prefer to believe B over A" And while you're absolutely allowed to do that, that's faith.

The fact is that he doesn't remember, and neither do you. The only thing that is certain is that we are alive and perceiving things, but it is NOT proven that this is the only way to perceive things in the whole existence, just like it's not proven that all of existence is material and visible for the humans. His memories are obviously limited to his physical brain, so, of course, he can't remember anything that this brain hasn't perceived. So, no, Rubix does not have evidence of this, and nobody has. You can't just take that as an absolute truth before making your arguments.

And I only insist on the black screen thought experiment because it's a very good reason, for me. I understand these thoughts, they make sense for me, and I am not stupid. So it's not just entirely "blind" faith.

Magewout 11-29-2009 12:55 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293528)
The fact is that he doesn't remember, and neither do you. The only thing that is certain is that we are alive and perceiving things, but it is NOT proven that this is the only way to perceive things in the whole existence, just like it's not proven that all of existence is material and visible for the humans. His memories are obviously limited to his physical brain, so, of course, he can't remember anything that this brain hasn't perceived. So, no, Rubix does not have evidence of this, and nobody has. You can't just take that as an absolute truth before making your arguments.

So basically you're saying 'according to me, you did percieve things before you were born, everyone did, but nobody remembers'. Well isn't that convenient.

mhss1992 11-29-2009 01:02 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Magewout (Post 3293545)
So basically you're saying 'according to me, you did percieve things before you were born, everyone did, but nobody remembers'. Well isn't that convenient.

Stop twisting the things I say.
All I said is that he couldn't be sure of what he said.

In case all of you didn't notice, I am not trying to prove the existence of God, afterlife or a purpose. I gave my reasons, because Rubix asked me several times why I believed in these things, but I was really trying to discuss the plausability.

MrRubix 11-29-2009 01:59 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
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 11-29-2009 02:55 PM

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 11-29-2009 03:16 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293463)
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 11-29-2009 05:39 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293590)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293590)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293590)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293590)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293590)
Do you see the difference?

Yes. Do you see my point?

mhss1992 11-29-2009 05:44 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293630)
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 11-29-2009 05:45 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Reach: Read my answers to MrRubix.

MrRubix 11-29-2009 06:12 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293706)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293706)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293706)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293706)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293706)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293706)
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 11-29-2009 06:15 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293709)
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 11-29-2009 07:15 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293723)
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 11-29-2009 07:23 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Well, what are your "personal experiences"?

mhss1992 11-29-2009 08:16 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293720)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293720)
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 11-29-2009 09:59 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293782)
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?



Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3293782)
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 11-30-2009 03:35 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
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 11-30-2009 09:49 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293847)
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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293847)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293847)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293847)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293847)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293847)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293847)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3293847)
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 11-30-2009 09:51 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mollocephalus (Post 3293998)
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 11-30-2009 02:58 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
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 11-30-2009 03:31 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
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 11-30-2009 03:40 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
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 11-30-2009 04:01 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3294133)
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 11-30-2009 04:05 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
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.

mhss1992 11-30-2009 04:16 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Sorry, people are asking me to do things all the time and it's taking a while to write the text.

Wait for it before you get to conclusions.

Edit: Darkness is not only the darkness of death. It's also the darkness of closing your eyes. You feel it, therefore, it exists. That's what I'm talking about.

MrRubix 11-30-2009 04:42 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3294181)
Sorry, people are asking me to do things all the time and it's taking a while to write the text.

Wait for it before you get to conclusions.

Edit: Darkness is not only the darkness of death. It's also the darkness of closing your eyes. You feel it, therefore, it exists. That's what I'm talking about.

The darkness of closing your eyes is merely you looking at the backs of your eyelids. You can "feel" this because your brain is still active -- your sentience is still processing. You are still a material observer with a material perception.

mhss1992 11-30-2009 04:46 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3294212)
The darkness of closing your eyes is merely you looking at the backs of your eyelids. You can "feel" this because your brain is still active -- your sentience is still processing. You are still a material observer with a material perception.

All I said is that we can be sure that the darkness exists because we feel it. I am not even discussing these things in your reply, lol

MrRubix 11-30-2009 04:50 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
What are you talking about? I addressed your "darkness" argument directly given your past reply. If this is not what you mean by "darkness," then please give another example. Give an example of "feeling darkness" that can't be explained in terms of human perception or sentience.

Izzy 11-30-2009 04:50 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Dark is just the lack of light. You don't feel dark. The only thing you feel when you close your eyes is the extreme contrast between the light coming in when you have your eyes open and the lack of light when you instantly close your eyes.

Perhaps you are feeling your pupils dilating, I don't know.

Edit: I haven't read the thread so I have no idea what we are arguing here.

Edit2: We can be sure darkness exists because we can't see it... lol.

mhss1992 11-30-2009 05:03 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3294221)
What are you talking about? I addressed your "darkness" argument directly given your past reply. If this is not what you mean by "darkness," then please give another example. Give an example of "feeling darkness" that can't be explained in terms of human perception or sentience.

Well, you're the one who started saying that "i can't be sure of the dark screen".
Of course I can be sure of the dark screen. The dark screen is the space where images occur. It's dark when there's no image, but we know that there is a space. And I am not talking about death, right now.
And there is nothing wrong with human perception or sentience, they explain this.

mhss1992 11-30-2009 05:11 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Okay, I finished the first of a series of thought experiments

Well, I suppose I'll no longer need to insist for you to temporarily ignore the anti-afterlife postulations while we think about the following things. But I don’t think it’s safe to suppose that, so I’ll say this before I post: Please, do not reply to them like you have replied to the other thought experiments, saying “you are ignoring physical facts”. These thought experiments are arguments against these postulations. So, it makes no sense for you to assume that the postulations are right and use this as an argument against my arguments. Do you understand? It’s like saying “your argument against postulation A is wrong, because postulation A is right” which is the same as “you are wrong, because you’re wrong”. It’s redundant. Also, don’t bring the evidence issue, now, because I already said: we can question postulations. I thought, and found an obstacle that didn’t fit well with the postulations, so I considered that the postulations can be wrong and thought about the obstacle.

1. This first line of thoughts is about the first person experience as a whole. It’s an “improvement” of the exchange thought experiment. As a materialist, I guess you have only two options for the location of the first person perspective:
A) It depends entirely on the configuration of the brain.
B) It depends on the matter which composes the brain.

Well, if we consider that 98% of our atoms are exchanged every year, it doesn’t make sense to assume that B is the right option. In this case, the observer depends on the configuration of the brain, and atoms themselves can’t be observers.
Think about the following: Pick up atoms. Atoms themselves are not observers, so, atoms don’t feel “I am an atom and I am feeling nothing”, because there’s no first person perspective for an atom. Our sensory inputs, however, are made of atoms. They react to stimuli and send it to the brain, which is also made of atoms.
If I change the configuration of your brain, you will still feel that you are in this brain. You will still feel the “perspective” from this brain. Because your brain is clearly changing all the time, and you still have the perspective from it. You will not be in “nothingness” for all eternity if I change the configuration of your brain, if the brain is still functional. If I turn another person’s brain into MrRubix’s brain, you will obviously not magically leave your brain and enter the other’s person brain and start feeling the world from it, either. The other person will be just a copy. No matter how much I change the configuration of your brain, as long as it is functional, the thoughts will change but the perspective will not change. The observer did not change. Your "I" still exists in the brain.

So, atoms change, configuration change, thoughts change but the perspective doesn’t change. So, we can try to say that “there is a configuration that never changes in your brain, and it determines your first person perspective”. Well, that was invalidated with the MrRubix copy. Creating several identical configurations will not create identical, “connected” perspectives. Each brain will always be individual, even if they are identical.
Everything about your brain changes. Where is this thing that determines the perspective, then?




I'll post the others soon. Please, try to seriously think about it. Don't just deny it or say that I am making false assumptions. If you are confident of what you believe, consider the argument for what it truly means.

Izzy 11-30-2009 05:34 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Perhaps the perspective is the physical body as a whole. You can see yourself therefore you declare yourself as being that person because you cannot escape from that body. You are forced to accept the fact that you are from a certain perspective because you can't leave it.

If we had two people who copied brains you would have two different perspectives because both of those people can see one another in different locations. Even if two things are identical it doesn't mean that they are referring to the same object.

So If you had no body and your sensory inputs and thought were somehow able to sustain form and life without every having physical confirmation of its own existence then I don't believe you would be able to have any kind of perspective. But since things don't work that way everyone has their own perspective on things.

All hypothetical ideas of course, always a high chance of begin incorrect.

Really though, What is more important? Truth or being right?

Stop trying to defend something that has evidence against it and don't be upset when your hypothesis's are incorrect. Just take the opportunity to correct yourself and help get to the goal of truth. Be speculative and not opinionated.

MrRubix 11-30-2009 06:01 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
mhss1992, that's the entire problem though. A thought experiment fails when there is evidence that directly contradicts it. It's nice to throw away other assumptions and say "Well, what if this is true?" The problem is that we can't prove certain things one way or the other, and a thought experiment weakens the moment something clashes against it or explains things with higher accuracy or consistency with other phenomena.

Saying "Your argument against this postulation is wrong because my postulation is right" is not what I'm saying. I am saying "I have evidence for my postulation, and you do not. Therefore my postulation is more rigorous and worthy of acceptance." You are right that you can always question postulations, but you need evidence for it -- "Don't bring the evidence issue," you realize, is operating on faith -- on "maybes." Exploring a "maybe" is what the scientific process is meant to do -- we can always question things, but we need a way to test things and observe to verify answers to our questions. I am saying evidence gives us more information than a lack of evidence does -- the latter brings no information at all. ANY explanation in the realm of the unknown -- in absence of any evidence whatsoever -- is just as logically valid as any other arbitrary explanation.

Addressing your brain configuration question:

Yes, our atoms are in a constant state of swapping. This does lead us to believe that is the underlying structure that matters. It's like if we consider a wristwatch. Even if we remove a component, say a specific wheel or gear, and replace it with an identical wheel or gear, it will still be a fully functional wristwatch. This process of replacement for humans just happens to operate on a smaller level over time through biological and physical processes.

So, focusing on configuration, I agree with your points, but I think you are still misunderstanding what a perspective exactly is. We can have many copies of MrRubix as we want. They will all have their own specific perspectives. Each different perspective depends entirely on the sheer moment we create that physical vessel. Each body will have their own "I," since it is the physical components that create the "I." That's simply the answer -- it is the physical components that create the perspective. It's like asking why Dell Laptop A isn't Dell Laptop B or something. A is A because it's made up of A parts. B is B because it's made up of B parts. A and B parts may be the same in every form, but if you have two separate objects, those are two separate objects. Atom A is different from Atom B, even if they're both the same type of atom. They are in different places.

Izzy 11-30-2009 06:09 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
I find that it helps to have at least a little bit of knowledge of computers and programming to help understand a lot of similar real life equivalences. Programming really breaks things down into it's most basic form and helps explain how things are built up into a much more complex idea.

Edit: Just being a devil's advocate here, but with that idea of computers and our understanding of the world around us it almost seems like a supporting idea for a higher intelligence.

Humans with their limited intelligence were able to create computers and it's "virtual space" which is similar to the supposed space that we think and store memories in. Maybe something with an extremely higher intelligence created the realm that we are currently trapped in with no way out. With no way for a computer program to ever be aware of its creator it is similar for humans to never possibly be able to conceive of what created the universe.

However since I don't believe there was intelligent life from the start of the universe that idea kind of falls apart.

Although maybe if the universe really was created by a higher intelligent they just created it at a point with physical properties that give evidence to it being older then when it was actually created. Like they create a planet that's properties gives evidence to it being 3 billion years old already.

Edit2: That idea runs into infinite recursion though. If there was an intelligent design then what created that intelligence? Interesting to think about none the less.

MrRubix 11-30-2009 07:24 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy (Post 3294287)
I find that it helps to have at least a little bit of knowledge of computers and programming to help understand a lot of similar real life equivalences. Programming really breaks things down into it's most basic form and helps explain how things are built up into a much more complex idea.

Edit: Just being a devil's advocate here, but with that idea of computers and our understanding of the world around us it almost seems like a supporting idea for a higher intelligence.

Humans with their limited intelligence were able to create computers and it's "virtual space" which is similar to the supposed space that we think and store memories in. Maybe something with an extremely higher intelligence created the realm that we are currently trapped in with no way out. With no way for a computer program to ever be aware of its creator it is similar for humans to never possibly be able to conceive of what created the universe.

However since I don't believe there was intelligent life from the start of the universe that idea kind of falls apart.

Although maybe if the universe really was created by a higher intelligent they just created it at a point with physical properties that give evidence to it being older then when it was actually created. Like they create a planet that's properties gives evidence to it being 3 billion years old already.

The only way a computer program could ever see "us" would be if we made the hardware in our world (e.g. webcam) to allow the computer program to see what's outside the bounds of his world. Similarly, some outside force would need to allow us access to external "hardware" for us to see what's outside our universe if such a thing existed.

But yes, if we were created, "maybe" there was artificial aging, but regardless -- we can think of infinitely many "maybes." We can't do a thing about them unless we have evidence to elucidate things for us. Either way, what created the creators?

Izzy 11-30-2009 07:26 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Well of course, I'm just having fun speculating. Even if it were true it wouldn't matter because there is nothing we can do about it.

Also for a computer to ever have the ability to understand there is a creator we would need to program it with the ability to understand there is a creator.

mhss1992 11-30-2009 09:06 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3294281)
mhss1992, that's the entire problem though. A thought experiment fails when there is evidence that directly contradicts it. It's nice to throw away other assumptions and say "Well, what if this is true?" The problem is that we can't prove certain things one way or the other, and a thought experiment weakens the moment something clashes against it or explains things with higher accuracy or consistency with other phenomena.

Saying "Your argument against this postulation is wrong because my postulation is right" is not what I'm saying. I am saying "I have evidence for my postulation, and you do not. Therefore my postulation is more rigorous and worthy of acceptance." You are right that you can always question postulations, but you need evidence for it -- "Don't bring the evidence issue," you realize, is operating on faith -- on "maybes." Exploring a "maybe" is what the scientific process is meant to do -- we can always question things, but we need a way to test things and observe to verify answers to our questions. I am saying evidence gives us more information than a lack of evidence does -- the latter brings no information at all. ANY explanation in the realm of the unknown -- in absence of any evidence whatsoever -- is just as logically valid as any other arbitrary explanation.

But I am not making another postulation yet, I am finding situations that cannot be satisfactorily explained by the original postulation. That's why I'm questioning it in the first place.

There cannot and will not ever be any physical proof of afterlife or stuff, because they obviously aren't physical. But we can't limit ourselves forever because of that. I am seeking an alternative way of evidence, a logical, not physical, one: reduction to the absurd.

That was the first thought experiment, and it's not the strongest one. I'll discuss this one, and post the others later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3294281)
Addressing your brain configuration question:

Yes, our atoms are in a constant state of swapping. This does lead us to believe that is the underlying structure that matters. It's like if we consider a wristwatch. Even if we remove a component, say a specific wheel or gear, and replace it with an identical wheel or gear, it will still be a fully functional wristwatch. This process of replacement for humans just happens to operate on a smaller level over time through biological and physical processes.

So, focusing on configuration, I agree with your points, but I think you are still misunderstanding what a perspective exactly is. We can have many copies of MrRubix as we want. They will all have their own specific perspectives. Each different perspective depends entirely on the sheer moment we create that physical vessel. Each body will have their own "I," since it is the physical components that create the "I." That's simply the answer -- it is the physical components that create the perspective. It's like asking why Dell Laptop A isn't Dell Laptop B or something. A is A because it's made up of A parts. B is B because it's made up of B parts. A and B parts may be the same in every form, but if you have two separate objects, those are two separate objects. Atom A is different from Atom B, even if they're both the same type of atom. They are in different places.

But, you see, this experiment is really about the perspective I'm talking about. Look at my definition of observer: the place where qualia occur. This is what I mean by first person "perspective".

Again, I'm not saying it is not material, yet. I'll try to be very careful with this.

Let's take this to another level. If someone desintegrated your brain, separating every single atom and putting them in a pot, your observer would disappear, according to you.

Now, let's suppose that this person, for some reason, picked every single atom and put it in place, making your brain again. Then, he puts this brain in a body identical to yours, in a room identical to the room you were at when he desintegrated your brain. Did the nonexistent observer get back to place? I mean, did *you* come back from nothingness, as if you were just asleep?

It seems easy to answer "yes".

But, now, let's suppose he picked other atoms, and not the ones that composed your brain at the moment. We both agreed that it doesn't depend on the atoms themselves, as they are always changing. With these new atoms, he created a copy of your brain, and put it in the identical body.

Now: did your observer, which no longer felt anything, come back to existence when he created this copy brain? Will you just open your eyes with the new brain, and it will still be *you*?

Or does the brain have an observer of it's own, and the original MrRubix is still dead, nonexistent?

If you chose the first answer: That generates a problem. He could create inumerous other copies and make the same procedure. But your observer can only exist at one brain. So, will it "choose" a specific brain? Doesn't that seem absurd? All of these brains will open your eyes, and one of them will be you, the one that felt your original body before your brain was desintegrated. But what bizarre magicks could possibly be responsible for this?

If you chose the second answer: well, there is a brain with exactly the same configuration, and yet it has another observer which is not the original MrRubix. The new brain will live MrRubix life, while the original has ceased to exist, that is, assuming that observers do cease to exist when people die. No one will ever notice the difference, not even the "new" MrRubix. That just proves that observer and brain are independent things.


Of course, I doubt that this will convince you. But I still want to know what option do you think is more likely, and if this generated the slightest doubt, for you.

Izzy 11-30-2009 09:23 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
It doesn't seem like that difficult of a question and you seem to be ignoring me.

If you removed the brain of someone and replaced it with a brain of the exact same composition with memories and all then it is still the same perspective as before.

Yes even though it is a different brain it will now go on to live that persons life even if the brain is made up different atoms with the same memories.

Yes, if you made a copy and put them in two separate locations they would both believe they are living the same person until they met, and then they would see they are different people. They still have different perspectives though because they are from that point different objects not referring to the same location.

At least they are still the same person as much as they are from one day to the next. Technically we aren't the same people after each moment as occurred because our brain changes constantly. One you obtain a new memory you aren't exactly the same person anymore. So as long we agree that we are the same people day to day then you are the same person if you remove your brain and replace it with a replica made of different atoms.

This is why some people think you can make a teleporter by creating something that makes an exact copy of you and then killing the original. The copy will think he is the original until he realizes he is just a copy, but it will still go on living the same life as the original would, if the original actually teleported to that location instantly without picking up any memory's along the way.

If you didn't kill the original then you have two copies who both think they are the same person but they have two different perspectives because they aren't at the same place receiving the same memories which generate different thoughts and emotions.

Blah blah blah, common sense imo. Seems pretty straight forward.

MrRubix 11-30-2009 10:31 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Mhs, since when are you assuming the current situation isn't explainable with the current postulation? I've explained every phenomena you've brought up so far with current postulations ALSO substantiated by evidence. If you're saying you don't need "evidence" to come to an explanation, then we may as well end the debate here. I think that we need evidence to make a claim about something -- otherwise, again, we could assume ANYTHING about the unknown. Do you understand what I mean by this? I honestly feel like I am repeating myself.

Yes, I understand what you mean about "the place where qualia occurs." You say it's not material (which is technically false, hence a major issue with your experiment already), but we'll roll with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3294411)
Now, let's suppose that this person, for some reason, picked every single atom and put it in place, making your brain again. Then, he puts this brain in a body identical to yours, in a room identical to the room you were at when he desintegrated your brain. Did the nonexistent observer get back to place? I mean, did *you* come back from nothingness, as if you were just asleep?

It seems easy to answer "yes".

If it's the same brain, yes -- it would be like a brain transplant, if such a thing were possible. It's like taking the guts out of a computer and putting it in another case. I'd still maintain my perception.


Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3294411)
Now: did your observer, which no longer felt anything, come back to existence when he created this copy brain? Will you just open your eyes with the new brain, and it will still be *you*?

Or does the brain have an observer of it's own, and the original MrRubix is still dead, nonexistent?

Yes, if someone melted my brain, I would be forever gone as my own observer. My "I" would be nothingness forever.

If you inserted another identical brain into my empty skull with all the same memories and functionalities, then THAT new brain would be a new observer with a new "I." But "I," the melted brain, would still be gone for good.

It's no different from if I removed my Intel i7 chip from my computer and replaced it with an identical processor. It'll have the same functionalities as before, even if it isn't the same processor. We're disagreeing on the concept of what makes a perception. You assume a perception is still something external when a perception is PURELY a function of the physical components at hand. It doesn't matter if they have the same memories, personality -- whatever. A new item is a new item. A perspective is causally linked to this physical item. Therefore, a new brain = new perspective, even if everything else is identical. This is PURELY based on physical evidence and is what we know given the nature of matter and how the human mind operates. To invoke anything else is to assume arbitrary thoughts without evidence.


Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3294411)
If you chose the first answer: That generates a problem. He could create inumerous other copies and make the same procedure. But your observer can only exist at one brain. So, will it "choose" a specific brain? Doesn't that seem absurd? All of these brains will open your eyes, and one of them will be you, the one that felt your original body before your brain was desintegrated. But what bizarre magicks could possibly be responsible for this?

If you chose the second answer: well, there is a brain with exactly the same configuration, and yet it has another observer which is not the original MrRubix. The new brain will live MrRubix life, while the original has ceased to exist, that is, assuming that observers do cease to exist when people die. No one will ever notice the difference, not even the "new" MrRubix. That just proves that observer and brain are independent things.


First answer is totally bogus BS. There's no reason to believe that my destroyed brain will come back as the second brain. It's a totally different brain.
Second answer is correct. It indeed has anothe observer who isn't the original MrRubix. It will indeed live for the remainder of my life, and the original is God. Observers do exist when people die. No one will notice the difference. I'm with you until... "This just proves the observer and the brain are independent things" -- WHAT? That is the exact OPPOSITE of what that experiment implies. It means a specific observer is tied to a specific brain because the brain IS the observer.

This entire discussion you keep assuming that "I" is somehow detached from a physical component. You need to understand that the physical components are what define that specific perspective. We have evidence for it. If I destroy your brain, you're gone. You, as you know it, are gone forever. You will never experience ANYTHING again. If we make another brain identical to yours, that new brain gets to experience the rest of your life for you.

Izzy 11-30-2009 10:44 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Everyone is ignoring me. =(

But yea, the brain is the observer. I guess I didn't even take into account that someone would think otherwise.

MrRubix 11-30-2009 10:48 PM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
I'm not ignoring you really, Izzy, mainly because I agree with you here. We seem to share the same view on the matters. Mhs and I, however, disagree.

It all comes down to this, Mhs: Everything is physical in nature. To postulate anything else is to be making a guess in absence of evidence. That's it. If you wish to believe "maybes" based on faith, that's completely up to you.

mhss1992 12-1-2009 05:47 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy (Post 3294424)
It doesn't seem like that difficult of a question and you seem to be ignoring me.

If you removed the brain of someone and replaced it with a brain of the exact same composition with memories and all then it is still the same perspective as before.

Well, if you consider the perspective I'm talking about, that basically means you believe that you are reviving someone who was killed. Wouldn't the dead person still be dead?

mhss1992 12-1-2009 06:29 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3294465)
Mhs, since when are you assuming the current situation isn't explainable with the current postulation? I've explained every phenomena you've brought up so far with current postulations ALSO substantiated by evidence. If you're saying you don't need "evidence" to come to an explanation, then we may as well end the debate here. I think that we need evidence to make a claim about something -- otherwise, again, we could assume ANYTHING about the unknown. Do you understand what I mean by this? I honestly feel like I am repeating myself.

Well, I've said several times that this is not what I'm doing. Look at that post, again, I said I'm looking for situations that cannot be explained by some of the current postulations. There's no need to argue about this anymore, seriously, let's just proceed with the thought experiments. It's not over yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3294465)
Yes, I understand what you mean about "the place where qualia occurs." You say it's not material (which is technically false, hence a major issue with your experiment already), but we'll roll with it.

Actually, I said "I'm not saying it's not material".

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3294465)
If it's the same brain, yes -- it would be like a brain transplant, if such a thing were possible. It's like taking the guts out of a computer and putting it in another case. I'd still maintain my perception.

Yes, if someone melted my brain, I would be forever gone as my own observer. My "I" would be nothingness forever.

If you inserted another identical brain into my empty skull with all the same memories and functionalities, then THAT new brain would be a new observer with a new "I." But "I," the melted brain, would still be gone for good.

Well, there’s a problem here. On the other post, you agreed with me that the atoms are changing all the time. It’s not what defines the observer.
You’re saying that if I create an identical brain, with the same atoms, you will live again and it will be really you. If I create an identical brain, but with different atoms, you will still be dead.
That’s the same as saying that the observer is in the atoms.
Don’t you think this is contradictory?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3294465)
It's no different from if I removed my Intel i7 chip from my computer and replaced it with an identical processor. It'll have the same functionalities as before, even if it isn't the same processor. We're disagreeing on the concept of what makes a perception. You assume a perception is still something external when a perception is PURELY a function of the physical components at hand. It doesn't matter if they have the same memories, personality -- whatever. A new item is a new item. A perspective is causally linked to this physical item. Therefore, a new brain = new perspective, even if everything else is identical. This is PURELY based on physical evidence and is what we know given the nature of matter and how the human mind operates. To invoke anything else is to assume arbitrary thoughts without evidence.

Well, again, the matter of our brains is changing all the time.
If I slowly swapped the atoms of your brain, one by one, in the end, it would still be the same observer in the brain. The observer wouldn’t be gone with the atoms, because I’m just doing the same thing that happens with you every three years or so, and your observer is still the same. It never left your body with the atoms.
If I picked the atoms that formed your brain before, which were exchanged, I could form a new, identical MrRubix brain and I assure you it would not be you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3294465)
First answer is totally bogus BS. There's no reason to believe that my destroyed brain will come back as the second brain. It's a totally different brain.

Well, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3294465)
Second answer is correct. It indeed has anothe observer who isn't the original MrRubix. It will indeed live for the remainder of my life, and the original is God. Observers do exist when people die. No one will notice the difference. I'm with you until... "This just proves the observer and the brain are independent things" -- WHAT? That is the exact OPPOSITE of what that experiment implies. It means a specific observer is tied to a specific brain because the brain IS the observer.

Hahaha…
There’s a huge confusion going on, here.
Like I said, the brain is identical. It just has different matter. I was just relating it to the conclusions we had about the other post.

You think that you will be “nothing” for all eternity, unless I create a brain with the same atoms of your melted brain.

If I pick up the same atoms and make a different brain, with different configuration, you will still be gone for eternity.
If I pick up different atoms and make the same brain, with the same configuration, you will still be gone for eternity.
But if I pick up the same atoms and make the same brain, you will be revived. I mean, that’s what you said.

Well, so, the observer depends on both the matter and the configuration, according to this.
But both matter and configuration ARE CHANGING constantly, and your observer is still the same.

Well, this IS absurd.

I’ll post the other thought experiment after college.

Mollocephalus 12-1-2009 09:23 AM

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God
 
rubix is right.

recreating one's body and mind does not mean resuming the perception. it means creating a new one and fill it with the data from the no longer alive person.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution