Metaphysics LOL?

[AC1speakerbox]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

If this thread was made by anyone other than Rubix, it would be a 0 reply.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

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.

"Plausible" means how likely something is to be true, or how credible it is, or how believable it is. If something's implausible, it means it's probably not true because there's either nothing at all to back it up or evidence to the contrary that makes it likely to be incorrect. Is it possible to AAA Vertex Beta vROFL? Sure. Is it plausible? Not at all.


An alien existence could be "plausible" because we understand how life came about given the conditions of our existence on this planet. I'd say you'd have a hard time arguing that there *isn't* life on other planets. With such a huge universe and so many galaxies, planets, etc, there is a very good chance that there are other permutations out there that allow for life to form and evolve in its own right. We can say such a view is "plausible" even if we can't prove it yet for various reasons (I mean, the universe is a pretty damn big place). Even though we haven't seen aliens, we can infer the likelihood of their existence through what we know so far about science and the cosmos.

True, many do prefer to be agnostic because atheism is a bit more dogmatic. You can also technically be an "agnostic atheist," which is what I'd consider myself -- "I don't think we can ever know for sure if there is a God or not, but if I had to place my bets, I'd assume there isn't one."

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

"I don't think we can ever know for sure if there is a God or not, but if I had to place my bets, I'd assume there isn't one."

But that's what I'm talking about. Really, if there's no proof against or for something, you can't say it's unlikely. Why do you bet there isn't one? Do you automatically relate God to religion?

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

I mean, consider how many stars there are in a given galaxy... billions. Imagine how many planets that could infer. Multiply that by the billions and billions of galaxies out there. The number of planets out there is staggering. I would say it's extremely unlikely that our solar system is the only permutation in which life is sustainable on one planet.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

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.

I know you believe it fails to exist, but I want you to think about it and describe it. What is a "no screen", or "no space"? Seriously, how can something like that disappear?

Well, I do imagine before I was born and, sincerely, I can't imagine the absence of blackness, there just has to be a space, because there will be images later. How can there be a space with images if there was no space earlier?

I mean, consider how many stars there are in a given galaxy... billions. Imagine how many planets that could infer. Multiply that by the billions and billions of galaxies out there. The number of planets out there is staggering. I would say it's extremely unlikely that our solar system is the only permutation in which life is sustainable on one planet.

Well, can I make an analogy with the stars of the universe and the intelligence I see in nature? :P

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

But that's what I'm talking about. Really, if there's no proof against or for something, you can't say it's unlikely. Why do you bet there isn't one? Do you automatically relate God to religion?

You can't disprove God, no, because we have no proof that directly shows it is impossible. The point is that as science continues to pile on the evidence, we are learning more and more that there is no reason to include a God in our explanation for things. That trend right now is so strong such that it seems quite likely that God doesn't play a part in any of it.

Although I feel that no matter what we discover, it will all still need to be consistent with the confines of physics. The only way we can ever know if there is a creator or not is if we somehow figured out how we were created (e.g. what caused the Big Bang? Was there anything before it? Are there other universes? What is time? etc).

Thing is, the universe got along fine without us for YEARS. Every explanation pertaining to our existence can be done physically, and there's piles of evidence suggesting what will happen when I die, for instance. While it may be a soothing function of our human capability to derive and interpret "meaning" of things to assume we can continue our lives after death and continue to experience the wonders of utility, I don't think it's plausible at all.

And yes I do relate God to religion. The laws of physics and causality have carried everything out faithfully since the beginning of time... I can't find any place where God would have any influence in these matters, as that would simply break those laws. Regarding the origin of the universe, I see that as the key to determining whether or not there is a God. The problem is that no matter how far back we go, we are always going to wonder what created the creator that made the first creation and so forth. This is one of the reasons I think of the whole 4th-dimensional thing as vital to this understanding, since dimensions have directions, and I feel time is perhaps no different. The concept of an uncaused cause hurts my head just as much as the notion of time always "existing."

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

I know you believe it fails to exist, but I want you to think about it and describe it. What is a "no screen", or "no space"? Seriously, how can something like that disappear?

Well, I do imagine before I was born and, sincerely, I can't imagine the absence of blackness, there just has to be a space, because there will be images later. How can there be a space with images if there was no space earlier?

Well, can I make an analogy with the stars of the universe and the intelligence I see in nature? :P

Again, I think you're trying to imagine a condition that you can't really imagine. You can't sense or "see" nothing. Nothing is just that -- nothing. A "screen" can appear and disappear just as your brain can function and not function. When you're born and your brain is developed enough to kick-start the "screen," it'll turn on. When you die, the "screen" disappears and you experience nothing. In my opinion, it's a lot like a dreamless sleep. When I go to bed at night, I fall asleep and wake up some given time later. Not having a screen, in my opinion, would be a lot like sleeping and not waking up from that dreamless sleep. My screen "turns off" as I doze off and "turns on" if I wake up.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

You can't disprove God, no, because we have no proof that directly shows it is impossible. The point is that as science continues to pile on the evidence, we are learning more and more that there is no reason to include a God in our explanation for things. That trend right now is so strong such that it seems quite likely that God doesn't play a part in any of it.

Although I feel that no matter what we discover, it will all still need to be consistent with the confines of physics. The only way we can ever know if there is a creator or not is if we somehow figured out how we were created (e.g. what caused the Big Bang? Was there anything before it? Are there other universes? What is time? etc).

Thing is, the universe got along fine without us for YEARS. Every explanation pertaining to our existence can be done physically, and there's piles of evidence suggesting what will happen when I die, for instance. While it may be a soothing function of our human capability to derive and interpret "meaning" of things to assume we can continue our lives after death and continue to experience the wonders of utility, I don't think it's plausible at all.

And yes I do relate God to religion. The laws of physics and causality have carried everything out faithfully since the beginning of time... I can't find any place where God would have any influence in these matters, as that would simply break those laws. Regarding the origin of the universe, I see that as the key to determining whether or not there is a God. The problem is that no matter how far back we go, we are always going to wonder what created the creator that made the first creation and so forth. This is one of the reasons I think of the whole 4th-dimensional thing as vital to this understanding, since dimensions have directions, and I feel time is perhaps no different. The concept of an uncaused cause hurts my head just as much as the notion of time always "existing."

Well, God is not religion. And God is not an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause bothers me as much as it bothers you.
What I mean by God is just intelligence. Just intelligence. I am not adding dogmas or anything, I'm not describing how it works. What if God came from another universe? What if we really live in a kind of matrix?

What we know only explains the universe well if we consider an absurdly high number of coincidences. And that just doesn't satisfy me.

There's no physical evidence about what will happen when we die, because we never looked into a dead person's mind. There are, however, several interesting reports related to reincarnation.

And there's also that 2nd part that I was trying to explain. It's really not explained by anything we know.

Again, I think you're trying to imagine a condition that you can't really imagine. You can't sense or "see" nothing. Nothing is just that -- nothing. A "screen" can appear and disappear just as your brain can function and not function. When you're born and your brain is developed enough to kick-start the "screen," it'll turn on. When you die, the "screen" disappears and you experience nothing. In my opinion, it's a lot like a dreamless sleep. When I go to bed at night, I fall asleep and wake up some given time later. Not having a screen, in my opinion, would be a lot like sleeping and not waking up from that dreamless sleep. My screen "turns off" as I doze off and "turns on" if I wake up.

It's funny... A guy in my country used exactly the same argument, "dreamless sleep"... Well, just because you don't remember it, that doesn't there's nothing.
But if there was nothing before you were born, why did this nothing cease to inexist in THIS brain? In what moment, in the formation of MrRubix's brain, did that happen? If there are several cells being formed in many brains in fetuses around the world, why did the undefined nothing cease to exist in this determined brain? I'll think of better words to describe what I mean.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

Well, God is not religion. And God is not an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause bothers me as much as it bothers you.
What I mean by God is just intelligence. Just intelligence. I am not adding dogmas or anything, I'm not describing how it works. What if God came from another universe? What if we really live in a kind of matrix?

What we know only explains the universe well if we consider an absurdly high number of coincidences. And that just doesn't satisfy me.

There's no physical evidence about what will happen when we die, because we never looked into a dead person's mind. There are, however, several interesting reports related to reincarnation.

And there's also that 2nd part that I was trying to explain. It's really not explained by anything we know.

I would then argue that complexity and intelligence are things that can evolve from the very simple.

And yes, the "what if"s you bring up may in fact be true. The fact is we don't know yet, and that is the stance I take with my view. I just say "I don't know because I don't know any evidence for or against it." If I have evidence in favor, I'll be more likely to believe it. If there's evidence against it, I'm probably not going to believe it. But if there is insufficient evidence to make a claim at this time, all I can really do is simply keep an open mind and stick to what I do know.

"What we know only explains the universe well if we consider an absurdly high number of coincidences. And that just doesn't satisfy me."

What do you mean by this? I don't think we can say everything's a coincidence. If I drop a ball, is it a coincidence that it happens to fall? The cosmos and the universe are no different. Everything obeys the laws and they carry out accordingly.

No, we have never been able to "peer into an inactive mind" once it's dead. There are no stories from those who've gone beyond the grave. However, it is reasonable to say that if we can describe our thoughts and activities and perspective as being contingent on the brain functioning, we can also infer that all these activities simply stop once the brain does. There's no evidence yet that we somehow carry "souls," and so far there is more evidence suggesting we don't have them. Also, I can infer what happens in death because I know what happened before I was born: Nothing. I know what happened before my brain was activated, and so it's reasonable for me to assume the same thing happens when I will die.

It's not a view I like, but right now it's the most plausible. If you have a better explanation that knocks that view out of the water with a higher plausibility, I'd love to hear it, as I have a huge fear of death.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

It's funny... A guy in my country used exactly the same argument, "dreamless sleep"... Well, just because you don't remember it, that doesn't there's nothing.
But if there was nothing before you were born, why did this nothing cease to inexist in THIS brain? In what moment, in the formation of MrRubix's brain, did that happen? If there are several cells being formed in many brains in fetuses around the world, why did the undefined nothing cease to exist in this determined brain? I'll think of better words to describe what I mean.

This "nothing" ceased to exist in this brain because my brain was created and activated. The mere act of creating a human forms an active brain. An active brain has the capability to think, feel, interpret, and perceive. That's all there is to it.

I don't know enough about the reproductive stages to pinpoint exactly when our brains "activate" and we're able to do these things internally (Reach would likely know this as he has studied the brain far more in-depth than I have), and it may be more of a gradient than an exact moment, but the fact is that our mental faculties form and grow as our brain does. Without a brain, those mental faculties simply aren't there. You start out with nothing mentally, and as the pieces form, the energy flows, the blood pumps, and life is brought to existence.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

It's not a view I like, but right now it's the most plausible. If you have a better explanation that knocks that view out of the water with a higher plausibility, I'd love to hear it, as I have a huge fear of death.

Really? I'm actually surprised.

Well, what I'm trying to tell, my thoughts exactly, makes me really convict of what I believe. And I have been discussing with atheists for a long time.

You didn't give me a very good explanation about the specific aspects of human body I talked on the other thread. I think that's a good example of coincidences.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

Really? I'm actually surprised.

Well, what I'm trying to tell, my thoughts exactly, makes me really convict of what I believe. And I have been discussing with atheists for a long time.

You didn't give me a very good explanation about the specific aspects of human body I talked on the other thread. I think that's a good example of coincidences.

If you're talking about complex things in the body like the eye, or ear, or even the brain, those things can all be explained with evolution.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

This "nothing" ceased to exist in this brain because my brain was created and activated. The mere act of creating a human forms an active brain. An active brain has the capability to think, feel, interpret, and perceive. That's all there is to it.

I don't know enough about the reproductive stages to pinpoint exactly when our brains "activate" and we're able to do these things internally (Reach would likely know this as he has studied the brain far more in-depth than I have), and it may be more of a gradient than an exact moment, but the fact is that our mental faculties form and grow as our brain does. Without a brain, those mental faculties simply aren't there. You start out with nothing mentally, and as the pieces form, the energy flows, the blood pumps, and life is brought to existence.

I'll try: ok, your brain has been activated. Look at this example:
"MrRubix" doesn't exist. You are going to be another person, you are going to be born in a few hours. There is a place with several babies being formed, and you are going to be one of them. What is on the brain of this baby that defines that you will feel the world by his brain, and not another? What defines that this baby isn't going to be a third person to you?

Yes this is much harder to express than I thought.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

If you're talking about complex things in the body like the eye, or ear, or even the brain, those things can all be explained with evolution.

Uhhh... Yeah, but, like I said, you have to consider coincidences. For example, I said that the only organs that make cells with meiosis are connected to the genitals. Why aren't there other organs like that around the body, useless ones, that don't keep you from living? What about the hormones and stuff?

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics LOL?

I'll try: ok, your brain has been activated. Look at this example:
"MrRubix" doesn't exist. You are going to be another person, you are going to be born in a few hours. There is a place with several babies being formed, and you are going to be one of them. What is on the brain of this baby that defines that you will feel the world by his brain, and not another? What defines that this baby isn't going to be a third person to you?

Yes this is much harder to express than I thought.

I already answered this question. I know exactly what you're asking, believe me.

You're again assuming that there's some kind of externality. When all of those baby brains form, they're all going to be people, with their own sets of personalities, thoughts, perspectives, etc. I am me because I am me. When my body was formed, I was created. I can't be anyone else because I am made up of MrRubix parts. It doesn't make sense to say "why can't you be this other baby" because that baby is that baby. The phyiscal makeup creates the perspective, not the other way around. We aren't some sort of disembodied "perspectives" that suddenly inject into a physical shell. The mere existence of those components in working harmony means that it now has an active, formed perspective and mental faculties. That person is that person and can't be some other person.

It's like asking, again, why a Toshiba laptop is a Toshiba and not a Dell. A Toshiba's a Toshiba because it possesses all of Toshiba's components. A Dell is made from Dell's components. Why was I not born as an Indian girl? Because I was born as an American male. The Indian girl is an Indian girl because she was, well, made in India.

"What is on the brain of this baby that defines that you will feel the world by his brain?"
"His brain" and "you" are the same thing, here. "His brain" defines what "you" are.