Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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

Alright. As I said before in the other thread, you're confusing the concept by totally ignoring certain physical facts and postulating something that has no proof.

I don't ignore physical facts, as far as I can remember... And, seriously, whatever physical facts you're talking about are completely irrelevant to this concept. If I said that "everything is your sensation" and "it’s the only thing whose existence is 100% proven.", does it make any sense to rely on external physical facts?
What if physical facts are an illusion? What if it's all inside your mind?
"Postulating something that has no proof"? This is just absurd. It's the only proven thing... How can the only proven thing have no proof? You need an external proof that you have sensations? Don't you realize this is just paradoxal?

I specifically said I was only trying to explain the concept, and that nothing written there proved that it was immaterial or not.

I'm not going to bother addressing the points on qualia, which are technically a bit incorrect but irrelevant to my argument (it can be argued that the experiences of qualia can be interpreted in a synonymous fashion even if you are incapable of the direct input, e.g. "What it feels like to see red").

There's nothing incorrect about qualia.
Being interpreted in a synonymous way doesn't mean that the feeling itself is the same for everyone.
Like I said, a robot can detect things. It can be programmed to detect damage and say "ouch" whenever he detects it, but it obviously doesn't feel the qualia "pain". It doesn't feel dissatisfaction.

"Then, you suddenly “become” B. That means you now have B’s thoughts, memories, personality and body. Everything that defines B. And B becomes you."

You're already assuming "I" am different from "A" and that I can "become" "B." The difference: "I" *AM* defined by being "A." "You" *ARE* defined by being "B." You're saying that A and B can switch places and have no real changes at all. What are we really changing then? If we have the same memories, personality, makeup, composition, etc, we have not really become different people. It would be like saying "what if you (mhs) and myself (Rubix) were constantly switching places all throughout our lives?" We would never know the difference, but from the perspective of our selves, the experiences are continuous as a result of our memories and faculties.

I am not going to discuss the semantics of "I", "A" and "B" right now...
The point is: you can imagine it, right?
If you are able to imagine this change, it means that you have the notion of what an "observer" is, even though you deny it.
It's just about understanding the concept. If I say "two people change observers" and nothing else, it means that the part of the brain, or the spirit, or whatever, that's specifically where the sensations occur, is exchanged.

There's no belief involved, it's a concept. I can say "exchange of observers" with the same freedom of saying "exchange of cerebellum".

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

The difference here is that you're limiting the argument to a purely sensational concept when that concept is physical in nature. That's all I'm getting at. I mean, if you want to resort to "What if everything's just in your mind and nothing actually exists," I think that's taking it too far. I mean to say that the "thing without proof" is that sentience is outside of physical construct. If this is not what you're trying to prove in our real world, then what is the point of your thought experiment? What question are you trying to address?

As for qualia, that is incorrect. Check out something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia -- a robot doesn't "feel" pain because it doesn't have the capability for it. You can program it to interpret what pain is, even if it can't process it on a deeper level that doesn't exist physically. A pain experience is a function of our sensory inputs. These sensory inputs can be replicated. Just because we can't explain something with words may not imply that the sensation itself can't be imposed in signal format. Qualia exists only to the extent that input devices put a slight variance on an experience resultant of every and all influencing factors, no matter how small or large.

Regarding your last paragraph, I understand what it would mean to "change perspectives." This could be accomplished by swapping memories alone! My question though: What practical application does this have? What are you trying to solve with that thought experiment? And, again, why believe in an external, higher intelligence?

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

The difference here is that you're limiting the argument to a purely sensational concept when that concept is physical in nature. That's all I'm getting at. I mean, if you want to resort to "What if everything's just in your mind and nothing actually exists," I think that's taking it too far. I mean to say that the "thing without proof" is that sentience is outside of physical construct. If this is not what you're trying to prove in our real world, then what is the point of your thought experiment? What question are you trying to address?

Well, I didn't get to this thing without proof yet. But yes, I am very convict that an observer cannot be created or destroyed. Before trying to explain why I believe it, I wanted to make everything clear about this concept.

As for qualia, that is incorrect. Check out something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia -- a robot doesn't "feel" pain because it doesn't have the capability for it. You can program it to interpret what pain is, even if it can't process it on a deeper level that doesn't exist physically. A pain experience is a function of our sensory inputs. These sensory inputs can be replicated. Just because we can't explain something with words may not imply that the sensation itself can't be imposed in signal format. Qualia exists only to the extent that input devices put a slight variance on an experience resultant of every and all influencing factors, no matter how small or large.

I have read the Wikipedia's definition of qualia before...

What proof do you have that other people feel, in the first place?
I didn't say anything incorrect... There's a huge difference between replicating sensory inputs and replicating qualia.
You are assuming that the same sensory inputs will generate qualia for anyone, but that's really a belief. You have no proof of that, and nobody has.
There is the concept of "zombies"... Not undead zombies, but people who are just "objects", people who seem to have feelings and normal behavior, but without any true first person experience.

I don't believe in zombies, though. But it's not possible to prove whether they exist or not. (I can' let anyone siggy this)

Every study and conclusion you have of this world will always happen because of qualia you experience. The concept of solipsism cannot be proven wrong, because you can't look through the eyes of another person. So, "What if it's all inside your mind" is really completely plausible, even though nobody wants to consider it.

Understanding qualia is important for this subject, because certain things cannot and will not be proven by pure external experimentation, even though they are real, and qualia are an absolute proof of that. They only exist for the person who feels them, and cannot be defined or expressed.

Regarding your last paragraph, I understand what it would mean to "change perspectives." This could be accomplished by swapping memories alone! My question though: What practical application does this have? What are you trying to solve with that thought experiment? And, again, why believe in an external, higher intelligence?

It has no practical application, it's just a thought experiment to help understand the concept. I only talked about this thought experiment again because I thought it wasn't very clear the other time.

But, really, we can live without it. In the end, it just generates more confusion due to my limited vocabulary (or the lack of words to express this in English).

I believe in an intelligence because I believe in a purpose. I am aware of the importance of an observer.
Things do exist without an observer, but they really don't make any difference.

You will argue that "things don't need to be noticed". Well, think about it: a universe without any observer has no image, no sound... It's just like pure, invisible data. A "potential" of true existence. It's just silly to talk about the explosion of a star if everything is just some sort of black screen (which is technically incorrect, since an observer is necessary for a black screen to exist. We'll probably talk about the black screen thought experiment, as well.)
We can compare it to a computer without a monitor, a printer, and any other device that allows humans to interact with it. Just a box with data, processing it and doing absolutely nothing else. It has no purpose.

Yes, this is an entirely emotional reason, but it's extremely powerful. There's also the fact that I can't conceive the creation or destruction of an observer, and this comes from the black screen thing.

The simple facts that such things exist is enough reason for me. I can't rely on physical proof for every single conclusion I have of existence, it's really too much prepotence for the humans to think that the physical world they see is everything that exists. It might not even exist.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Yes, I agree that without an observer, the universe is just a bunch of "data without a monitor." A hard drive crackling with data but no way to access it. I also agree that it has no inherent purpose.

If you can't think of what it's like to create/destroy an observer, think about what you were observing before you were born. Death will be exactly like that.

How about when you sleep sometimes? When your mind basically shuts out for a while, without dreams, without sense of time, and you wake up the next morning? How do you define that "in-between sleeping experience" when your mind was not in any real form of observation? I think that as a living creature, these types of sleeping experiences are the closest thing we've got to experiencing death.

Anyways, are you saying that the mere fact the universe exists is enough for you to believe that it must have been created?

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Yes, I agree that without an observer, the universe is just a bunch of "data without a monitor." A hard drive crackling with data but no way to access it. I also agree that it has no inherent purpose.
If you can't think of what it's like to create/destroy an observer, think about what you were observing before you were born. Death will be exactly like that.

I have no idea what I was observing before I was born... I guess you're just assuming it was "nothing".

But what is "nothing"?
Let's think about the screen. In the formation of your brain, certain neurons responsible for the interpretation of light as images were created, right?
Right before those neurons existed, how was it?
The space which contains the images you currently see... It didn't exist? If it was just dark, the space already existed. Which means that the observer already existed, of course.
But if the space didn't exist... How exactly was the change between the "no space" and the space? Is there such a thing as a "half space"? Can a dimension be created?
For anything to exist, mustn't there be a previous space of some kind?

We've been through this before. But please, try to imagine that.

I sincerely can't imagine that. Trying to imagine this is the only thing I can do, because I don't know how it was before I was born.

How about when you sleep sometimes? When your mind basically shuts out for a while, without dreams, without sense of time, and you wake up the next morning? How do you define that "in-between sleeping experience" when your mind was not in any real form of observation? I think that as a living creature, these types of sleeping experiences are the closest thing we've got to experiencing death.

Just because we don't know what's going on doesn't mean that we don't exist in the meantime.

Anyways, are you saying that the mere fact the universe exists is enough for you to believe that it must have been created?

The mere fact that the universe and observers exist is enough for me to believe in a purpose. And, for me, a purpose indicates an intelligence, a greater will of existence. Explaining every single thought that makes me feel like that will be a big challenge, though.

[devonin]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Just a few things to chime in with:

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.

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.

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

"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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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".

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.

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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.

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.

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.

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

"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.