Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[MrRubix]

Just decided to re-kick this into effect just for grins.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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]

I need to leave, now, but I'll reply soon.

[insanefreddy926]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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]

So what things do you think require an intelligence to be explained?

And, try explaining your thought experiment again.

[mhss1992]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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]

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

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

"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]

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]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.