Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[MrRubix]

Mhs, I'll make my primary point again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see the difference?