Metaphysics LOL?

[~kitty~]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

Oh gosh, a lot of you speak as if you're so sure of yourself. We can't ever have exact clones because every moment we experience changes us in a different way. The likely-hood of having an exact clone is nearly impossible, if not impossible. You would need a completely controlled environment to make a real "clone" of somebody.

We, as humans, don't start out with knowledge and we still lack the knowledge to say certain things. Just because something makes sense, doesn't mean it's true. You can see that in the history of theories for things we now hold to be most accurate. The thing about before we were born is that we didn't exist until are components were put together, but after life, I think it could exist. Our brains could be emitting a special substance that makes after life possible. We don't know because we don't learn things through being "smart". We learn things through experience and experiments. Even then, the confounding can always get in the way, since our lack of knowledge. We can keep on arguing and arguing, but no one will know who is truly correct. We can, however, determine who is wrong to an extent, based on certain foundations. I may be wrong, but I know I am also right to an extent.

The reason no one can tell us if the after life exists is because of lack of experience, since no one has ever been dead for an extended period of time and actually came to life in which we can actually prove that. There could always be a contradicting variable out there that may prove all of us wrong, but we won't ever know, now will we? Maybe not in our life time, at the least.

EDIT: The 5 physical senses may be replicated to a "spiritual" one, considering physical experiences may tamper with our "spiritual", in the view that "God" may exist, but not was what we may think he is according to the Bible and other literary religious pieces.

EDIT 2: Wait, so this isn't CT? d: Oh well.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

Sure, I can see colors. But the only "space" I would define here would be my field of vision, in which I am able to interpret the light that my eyes catch.

[Mulie]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

I didn't say that the feelings create a space, I said that feeling occur in spaces, imaginary spaces. Again, can you imagine the images as something in a 2D space?

Ah, I think I see what you're getting at, now. We're arguing over something subjective. Well, thinking about this is kind of useless, except as a mental exercise.

I gave my debate against this idea in my previous post and I won't repeat myself, but thinking of perception as something that happens in imaginary space is only an abstract idea. Kind of like saying that sqrt(-1) = i. There's no substantial evidence.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

Sure, I can see colors. But the only "space" I would define here would be my field of vision, in which I am able to interpret the light that my eyes catch.

The objects you see are in a 3D space, the physical space.
Ok, but the colors of the objects you feel are projected in your mind as a 2D feeling, because the feeling "color" has no depth, only height and length. This is the space I mean.

Ah, I think I see what you're getting at, now. We're arguing over something subjective. Well, thinking about this is kind of useless, except as a mental exercise.

I gave my debate against this idea in my previous post and I won't repeat myself, but thinking of perception as something that happens in imaginary space is only an abstract idea. Kind of like saying that sqrt(-1) = i.

No, because it's a fact. Colors are bidimensional. And bidimensional things exist in a bidimensional space, this space is real, but exists inside your mind.

[Reach]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

A lot of this discussion is going nowhere fast :P

It seems that way, at least from a physical (and psychological) standpoint. However, philosophy has yet to resolve the perceptual dimension of the issue, which contains the most relevance for humankind. At this point, though, we're venturing into different territory (human perception of personal conscious states w/ the additional component of time), and semantics starts playing a role in how we wish to define the stances we might espouse.

Sure, philosophically the issue isn't completely resolved, but I wouldn't say that contains the most relevance for humankind. I would argue quite the opposite. All of our advances in understand the mind-reality issue are coming from neuroscience.

Knowing that events have already been determined prior to you feeling that you willed them puts a nail in the coffin, IMO. Obviously, from these dozens of experiments, it is quite clear that our perceived free will is deterministic - i.e. we feel the way we do about things because of predetermined reactions within our brains.

And this is easily the most consistent explanation of reality. I find it very hard to argue anything else in a reasonable manner in light of this knowledge. Most of the debate on this issue occurred in a time prior to having this knowledge.

I feel it is only the same with 'God'. God has, over time, *always* been used to fill gaps in knowledge. As we continue to increase the amount of knowledge we have, the job of God becomes less and less. I fear it will soon enough not have anything reasonable to do at all.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

Oh gosh, a lot of you speak as if you're so sure of yourself. We can't ever have exact clones because every moment we experience changes us in a different way. The likely-hood of having an exact clone is nearly impossible, if not impossible. You would need a completely controlled environment to make a real "clone" of somebody.

We, as humans, don't start out with knowledge and we still lack the knowledge to say certain things. Just because something makes sense, doesn't mean it's true. You can see that in the history of theories for things we now hold to be most accurate. The thing about before we were born is that we didn't exist until are components were put together, but after life, I think it could exist. Our brains could be emitting a special substance that makes after life possible. We don't know because we don't learn things through being "smart". We learn things through experience and experiments. Even then, the confounding can always get in the way, since our lack of knowledge. We can keep on arguing and arguing, but no one will know who is truly correct. We can, however, determine who is wrong to an extent, based on certain foundations. I may be wrong, but I know I am also right to an extent.

The reason no one can tell us if the after life exists is because of lack of experience, since no one has ever been dead for an extended period of time and actually came to life in which we can actually prove that. There could always be a contradicting variable out there that may prove all of us wrong, but we won't ever know, now will we? Maybe not in our life time, at the least.

EDIT: The 5 physical senses may be replicated to a "spiritual" one, considering physical experiences may tamper with our "spiritual", in the view that "God" may exist, but not was what we may think he is according to the Bible and other literary religious pieces.

I would argue that we have more evidence for the physical interpretation of life than we do a spiritual one. Does your book have a "soul"? Does the grass? What about the ocean? What if I take a bucket of water from the ocean? How would this work when humans are biologically composed of material/physical components? How would your brain evolve to the point where it starts emitting a substance making life after death possible? If I make Computer B entirely separate of Computer A, why would we make the assumption that Computer A is somehow now the new B when the parts are completely separate?

The reason why I feel like I am "sure" of this view is because it's consistent with everything we've learned so far when it comes to science, whereas a "special substance emitted from the brain" is, at this point, purely speculative. We KNOW we're made of physical components and we can prove this. We KNOW how our atoms cycle. We KNOW that perception is controlled, shaped, and interpreted by the brain. Everything I've said so far, technically speaking, about how our bodies are formed and how they function is true and consistent with science. I have more proof lending credence to an absence of afterlife than a presence of one.

While it may be "possible" for an "afterlife substance" in the brain, its plausibility is quite low, since there's no reason yet to assume such a thing exists or would function in that way. Where my belief system differs from others is that I base them off what is plausible, and what I can verify and know with science. There is nothing wrong with believing in a theory, but I think to get a proper perspective and belief you have to look into multiple systems.

Believe me, for a long time I *tried* to be religious. I actively pushed aside science and determinism for a while and tried to believe in a God. I read the Bible, went to church for a few weeks, but was disappointed since it all relied on pure faith, and, in many regards, confirmation bias. I can't bring myself to believe in something implausible when I have perfectly plausible, alternative explanations for things.

However, if truth is what you seek, then you absolutely have to look at all the evidence. My views have formed from a lifetime of looking at all sides, and it is why I am very firm in my beliefs. Others may be firm in their faith in God, and that's fine.

But, as faith would have it, the burden of proof is on the religious types. If someone looks at my scientific/physical argument and either ignores it or simply fails to properly give counterpoints, I would be hard-pressed to live my life on such shaky principles. The reason why I am very firm in my beliefs is because they're, again, consistent with what we know.

[~HentaiXXX~]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

Sorry to be a stick in the mud (lol) but shouldn't this be in CT? I don't frequent CT enough to know the rules and what's accepted and what's not, but I'm seriously wondering about this one.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

The objects you see are in a 3D space, the physical space.
Ok, but the colors of the objects you feel are projected in your mind as a 2D feeling, because the feeling "color" has no depth, only height and length. This is the space I mean.

Ok, so you mean a sort of 2-d image projection based on the light we interpret from 3-dimensional objects? Like if we took a picture of something.

Alright, so what about this space? You're asking if it can appear and disappear? That space exists that way because it's how our brains work with our eyes. Our eyes take in an image, and our brain makes sense of the signals. If our brain stopped working, or if our eyes were removed, we would not see any "space." We would have no sense of sight at all. We could still picture images via our imagination, as our brain is a massive engine for generating and making sense of thoughts and images, but we would not see any "space" with our eyes.

[~kitty~]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

I would argue that we have more evidence for the physical interpretation of life than we do a spiritual one. Does your book have a "soul"? Does the grass? What about the ocean? What if I take a bucket of water from the ocean? How would this work when humans are biologically composed of material/physical components? How would your brain evolve to the point where it starts emitting a substance making life after death possible? If I make Computer B entirely separate of Computer A, why would we make the assumption that Computer A is somehow now the new B when the parts are completely separate?

The reason why I feel like I am "sure" of this view is because it's consistent with everything we've learned so far when it comes to science, whereas a "special substance emitted from the brain" is, at this point, purely speculative. We KNOW we're made of physical components and we can prove this. We KNOW how our atoms cycle. We KNOW that perception is controlled, shaped, and interpreted by the brain. Everything I've said so far, technically speaking, about how our bodies are formed and how they function is true and consistent with science. I have more proof lending credence to an absence of afterlife than a presence of one.
... (the dots of doom)

But, as faith would have it, the burden of proof is on the religious types. If someone looks at my scientific/physical argument and either ignores it or simply fails to properly give counterpoints, I would be hard-pressed to live my life on such shaky principles. The reason why I am very firm in my beliefs is because they're, again, consistent with what we know.

Well, my defense is that I'm only 16 ): lol. d:

[Mulie]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

Sorry to be a stick in the mud (lol) but shouldn't this be in CT? I don't frequent CT enough to know the rules and what's accepted and what's not, but I'm seriously wondering about this one.

Yes.

Just look at the image in front of you. Isn't it a bidimensional feeling, the colors?
The bidimensional place where colors occur is the space I'm talking about. I'm not really saying it's a physical or magical space, it's just a space for perceptions, an imaginary space.

No, because it's a fact. Colors are bidimensional. And bidimensional things exist in a bidimensional space, this space is real, but exists inside your mind.

I could argue that the existence of bidimensional space is a subjective theory; that it's also an idea that can be used in a practical sense. It's not worth arguing.

Science is uncertain by its very nature. You can't presume our perception (mind) creates a space of its own, not in any sense. Colors being bidimensional and the projections our mind seem to create (IE perception) don't correlate!

It's just like Reach said: this debate is going nowhere. It looks like you're grasping at something that isn't even there. At this rate we'll come up with a misinterpretation of facts at best.

[ledwix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

This seems like a never-ending debate between people who think that the scientific method is or is very nearly the only valid way of coming to conclusions and people who don't think that.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

Ok, so you mean a sort of 2-d image projection based on the light we interpret from 3-dimensional objects? Like if we took a picture of something.

Alright, so what about this space? You're asking if it can appear and disappear? That space exists that way because it's how our brains work with our eyes. Our eyes take in an image, and our brain makes sense of the signals. If our brain stopped working, or if our eyes were removed, we would not see any "space." We would have no sense of sight at all. We could still picture images via our imagination, as our brain is a massive engine for generating and making sense of thoughts and images, but we would not see any "space" with our eyes.

But if you think about an image, it's in the same space. It's not the space in front of you, it's the space in your mind, because all of the existence that happens to you is in your mind. You have to consider that. Well, you didn't answer if it can disappear or not. Actually, you are considering more the words than the semantics themselves. You have to try to imagine, if your skepticism allows you. Words alone are not going to prove anything in this subject. The point is to try to reach an absence of blackness, trying to imagine a black space simply disappearing or appearing, and what "nothing" means.

Well, I guess that's it. I said in my very first post about this subject on the other thread that talking about what makes me so sure about it would be very frustrating.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

But if you think about an image, it's in the same space. It's not the space in front of you, it's the space in your mind, because all of the existence that happens to you is in your mind. You have to consider that. Well, you didn't answer if it can disappear or not. Actually, you are considering more the words than the semantics themselves. You have to try to imagine, if your skepticism allows you. Words alone are not going to prove anything in this subject. The point is to try to reach an absence of blackness, trying to imagine a black space simply disappearing or appearing, and what "nothing" means.

Well, I guess that's it. I said in my very first post about this subject on the other thread that talking about what makes me so sure about it would be very frustrating.

You must be referring to the "mind's eye" sort of thing, then? Like "where" are we seeing this image we are interpreting?

In either case, I don't think we can reach an absence of blackness. We have our mind's eye as long as we are alive, but our eyes are simply windows that give our brains images. I don't think we can ever "see" nothing. The only say to see nothing is to have no eyes. It'd be like using the eyes in the back of your head.

In a way are you asking what a blind man would see?

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

You must be referring to the "mind's eye" sort of thing, then? Like "where" are we seeing this image we are interpreting?

In either case, I don't think we can reach an absence of blackness. We have our mind's eye as long as we are alive, but our eyes are simply windows that give our brains images. I don't think we can ever "see" nothing. The only say to see nothing is to have no eyes. It'd be like using the eyes in the back of your head.

In a way are you asking what a blind man would see?

Well, I guess "mind's eye" has something to do with it. Just think about what you see as a movie, your whole life. A movie in your brain. If you close your eyes, the screen becomes (almost) black. But what you imagine also happens in this screen. You said we can't reach an absence of blackness. Ok. But what happens to this screen before it exists or after we die? What is a "no" screen?

A blind man who never saw anything wouldn't be able to tell if there's a 2D screen, because he doesn't know the meaning of "seeing". But that doesn't mean the isn't a space like that in his brain, too.

While it may be "possible" for an "afterlife substance" in the brain, its plausibility is quite low, since there's no reason yet to assume such a thing exists or would function in that way. Where my belief system differs from others is that I base them off what is plausible, and what I can verify and know with science. There is nothing wrong with believing in a theory, but I think to get a proper perspective and belief you have to look into multiple systems.

Why not plausible?

You think an alien is not plausible just because we haven't seen it?

Well, following your logic, it would be much more reasonable to be agnostic and not saying anything about the afterlife. Assuming that it's not plausible is as dogmatic as just believing without any reason.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

Well, I guess "mind's eye" has something to do with it. Just think about what you see as a movie, your whole life. A movie in your brain. If you close your eyes, the screen becomes (almost) black. But what you imagine also happens in this screen. You said we can't reach an absence of blackness. Ok. But what happens to this screen before it exists or after we die? What is a "no" screen?

A blind man who never saw anything wouldn't be able to tell if there's a 2D screen, because he doesn't know the meaning of "seeing". But that doesn't mean the isn't a space like that in his brain, too.

Errr, I think they're really one in the same. The "mind's eye" or "screen" or whatever still fails to exist when your brain isn't functioning. If you want to think of it like a movie player in your brain, think of it as closing the program when you die :P Again, think about what it's like before you were born. That's "no screen" I would assume. I would not say a "screen" is the best analogy here though in the first place.

Plenty of blind people don't start out blind btw. Plenty of these blind types still dream in color as well, although such dreams diminish with time. Your mind's eye is still capable of creating the images, it's just that you're no longer receiving the feedback from sensory organs.