Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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?

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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.