Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[devonin]

Just a few things to chime in with:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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...

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

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]

"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]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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".

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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]

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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]

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]

"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]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

"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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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"?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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]

And why are you ignoring that solipsism question?

[MrRubix]

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.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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?

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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]

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.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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]

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

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]

Originally Posted by Magewout

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.