Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[mhss1992]

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?

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.

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"?

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

And why are you ignoring that solipsism question?

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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.

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?

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?

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.

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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.

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.

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Mhs, I'll make my primary point again:

You can NOT disprove anything that we know nothing about. There are an INFINITELY GREAT number of things we could believe in that we have no evidence for with varying degrees of plausibility. You keep coming back to "Well you just assume it's true! You have no proof that my explanation is false! You can never be sure!" This sort of statement shows that you're missing my point. Funny how the very definition of science is one such that a hypothesis must be falsifiable to allow itself to be incorrect! I am saying that, when offering an explanation for a particular type of phenomenon, we can either explain it with a concept we have no evidence for, or explain it with a concept we have evidence for.

For example: Say we lived back in the day when people generally believed in geocentricity for a moment. The Earth appears to be still, right? We can see the sun rotate around our sky, and we can also unveil various aspects of space. We have evidence that this geocentric model is a reasonable explanation for our spatial positioning. However, a faith-based believer might simply think, "Well, I think the sun is actually just a giant light being blasted up in the sky by a Magical Skylight from our Earth." However, I can explain how people all over the world can see our sun rotate around the Earth, and I would also say that we have never found such a skylight rotating around our entire planet yet.

However, both claims are actually suspect! We can then reveal how various movements of stars and planets from our sky (such as retrograde motion) don't make sense with the geocentric model, and we can create a more heliocentric model that makes more sense -- we can also explore space and view other heliocentric systems externally, which are consistent with our own internal observations of our own system. Was the geocentric view incorrect? Yes -- but at least there was evidence for it. Notice how the other explanation was totally arbitrary. I could have made up ANY other explanation for that statement.

Had we had this debate about geocentricism and Magical Skylights back in the day, you would have said "Well, you can't always be sure that you are correct! You can't disprove my theory with such certainty." Sure, I can't be 100% sure that the geocentric model is correct, but it has more justification based on evidence, whereas your approach has no proof or ignores contradictory proof. If you believe that there is a Magical Skylight, then you'd better damn well find evidence of its existence. If you can't, and there is other evidence that provides a much more plausible explanation, then it's not very rational to ignore the counterargument.

Much like this debate, you say "You can never be sure of what you say!" This is missing the point. If you want to take it down to the most basic level, then sure. We can never be sure of what we say. We may even be wrong. But at least we have evidence to back up our claims that are consistent with all other phenomena.

Unlike the extremely simple "geocentric vs Skylight" argument though, in this case, we have a VAST wealth of information that explains various occurrences in our universe... the problem is that God is typically defined in a way that will always be outside of our information. He is like the Magical Skylight that everyone agrees we will never find, but believe exists, even if there is evidence to suggest he isn't needed. Why do we need to hold onto a Magical Skylight argument if we have a bunch of information about the Sun and the cosmos that provides a sufficient explanation? Same thing goes for concepts like Intelligence. Why do we need such an argument when we have a wealth of evidence suggesting natural processes and changes?

And, you're right, I can never be sure that I didn't experience anything before I was born because my memory didn't exist. It's entirely "possible" that I "existed" before I was born and simply don't remember it now. However, there's no evidence for it. There are infinitely many explanations I could give to the unknown. Maybe I existed on a spiritual plane? Maybe I lived another human life? Maybe I lived as a rock and was crushed -- maybe inanimate objects have inherent "life-force." Maybe I was part of the ocean, evaporated, and died. Maybe I was a non-matter energy entity of a parallel universe with different laws. Maybe I was still MrRubix and we re-live our lives over and over and over again. Maybe I was you. Maybe I was an Angel.

My point is that all of these "Maybes" are infinite in number, and we can't disprove any of them. However, I do have evidence that I experienced nothing before I was before, because my body didn't exist (and can be substantiated -- even if I don't remember it, I can provide evidence that I did not exist as MrRubix 24 years ago), and I remember nothing at all whatsoever. I also know that for a machine to work, it has to exist. That is to say, a computer won't work unless the parts of the computer are working together in a way that provide the functionalities of a computer. I also know that, as a human, we can explain all sorts of activities as functions of the brain -- including sensual inputs/sentience/consciousness/even perception. Therefore, I can claim that the brain is a sort of machine that provides these functionalities, and when that machine is either not active or not existing, then those functions cease. This is consistent with my lack of perception before I was born. Therefore I can also postulate that when I die, my brain will again not function -- just like a microwave that can no longer turn on to heat things. Only, unlike a microwave, whose job is to... microwave, my brain is a machine with a greater number of capabilities (including perception and consciousness) that will no longer be "running."

In your argument, though, you assume that we are beings with some sort of "perception separated from mind separated from body" thing going on. Let us define "X" as that external entity from the mind then -- the underlying structure of your black screen perception argument. Again, please answer my question: Does a computer have X? Does a cat? Does a colony of bacteria? What about one single-celled organism? How about a rock? A tree? A drop of water? An ocean?

Do you see the difference?

[Reach]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

I don't want to get into this too heavily, but I have a few points:

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?

There's a causal link between these functions and the physical brain, which is why we can be sure. Everything you do and can perceive is physically and causally linked to what is happening in your brain. In the absence of a brain then, there is and cannot be any perception.

It is not hard to experimentally verify this, so I don't see what the argument here is about. You can knock out individual centers in the brain to temporarily block someone's perception of a stimuli. Nothing can be perceived without the physical connections in your brain to do so.

To argue that there are other possibilities is invoking magical thinking.

You CAN'T say that a non proven thing doesn't exist like you're doing, all you can do is doubt it.

I can reject it, actually, if it is not testable. There's a difference between something that isn't proven yet and something that can never be proven or falsified because it's untestable.

Two examples to demonstrate:

1. There is some debate over the existence of dark matter and, if it exists as we assume it does, what it is composed of. As such this is an unproven concept; I could doubt it, or believe whatever I want, but ultimately it exists within the realm of reality and can eventually be tested to determine an empirical answer.

I can doubt either position, but I can't reject them because it's still up in the air. Ultimately the answer will come to light eventually though.

2. Joe believes in a universe beyond our own, where there is a magical undetectable planet where a blue hedgehog runs around collecting golden rings in an attempt to stop an evil engineer with a beer belly and an IQ of 300.

I could doubt it, or believe Joe; however, ultimately this is untestable and can never be proven or falsified. As such, rejection of Joe's belief is logically necessary. If you accept or merely 'doubt' Joe, then you are also by logical necessity unsure about absolutely every non existent thing that could ever be thought up or fabricated. Obviously this isn't the case; I'm sure you're not unsure about whether or not Santa Claus exists, so it should be easy to see the logical problem with simply 'doubting' something that can never be tested simply because it isn't proven false.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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?

Well, here's one concept for you: Confirmation bias. If we dream every night, odds are that we will dream about things that do in fact happen the next day at one point or another. I myself dreamed one night that my uncle would call my house, and it happened the next day after a few years of no contact. However, humans tend to focus more on the events that confirm their suspicions than they do events that deny. What about all the dreams you've ever had that have not predicted events? You're merely picking and choosing events that confirm (hence "confirmation bias") your suspicion instead of taking into account conditions that do not. There are also a variety of events that could have influenced my dream (which are numerous -- I won't get into them, however).

Besides, it seems more plausible that perhaps the ceiling was weak to begin with. Was he working on it beforehand/maybe worrying that he did a poor job and that it was unstable, influencing the outcome of his dream/what did he know about the ceiling before the dream? There are many possible influences that would have increased the likelihood of such a dream. Even without any such indicators, such an event can occur through chance alone ("chance" referring to things we model with probability in absence of directly-measurable variables). Every day we are rolling the dice on a countless number of events. We're going to hit improbable events all the time in different spots -- some of them just happen to be more apparent to us than others.

If I had a dream that a monster walked into my friend's room and raped him silly, I'm not going to warn him because such an event is unlikely and without merit. I wouldn't warn him unless there was some reason to. In your case, there was perhaps another external indicator of evidence as to why the ceiling would fall. This seems more plausible to me than "a sign from above."

Either way, I still call confirmation bias.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Mhs, I'll make my primary point again:

You can NOT disprove anything that we know nothing about. (...) Why do we need such an argument when we have a wealth of evidence suggesting natural processes and changes?

Alright. Yes, I understand your reasons. I would probably agree with you entirely (except I would still be an agnostic) were it not for my observer-related experiences and thoughts. It is frustrating, for me, because I can never get people to understand why it is so strong for me, in the first place. That's why I asked you to think about it.

And, you're right, I can never be sure that I didn't experience anything before I was born because my memory didn't exist. It's entirely "possible" that I "existed" before I was born and simply don't remember it now. However, there's no evidence for it. There are infinitely many explanations I could give to the unknown. Maybe I existed on a spiritual plane? Maybe I lived another human life? Maybe I lived as a rock and was crushed -- maybe inanimate objects have inherent "life-force." Maybe I was part of the ocean, evaporated, and died. Maybe I was a non-matter energy entity of a parallel universe with different laws. Maybe I was still MrRubix and we re-live our lives over and over and over again. Maybe I was you. Maybe I was an Angel.

Yes. I don't believe in a specific "maybe", either.
But I only insisted on this "you cannot be sure" thing because you were actually saying that you didn't exist as if it were an absolute truth. You were using these assumptions to attack the thought experiments even before you tried to find what they really meant.

My point is that all of these "Maybes" are infinite in number, and we can't disprove any of them. However, I do have evidence that I experienced nothing before I was before, because my body didn't exist (and can be substantiated -- even if I don't remember it, I can provide evidence that I did not exist as MrRubix 24 years ago), and I remember nothing at all whatsoever. I also know that for a machine to work, it has to exist. That is to say, a computer won't work unless the parts of the computer are working together in a way that provide the functionalities of a computer. I also know that, as a human, we can explain all sorts of activities as functions of the brain -- including sensual inputs/sentience/consciousness/even perception. Therefore, I can claim that the brain is a sort of machine that provides these functionalities, and when that machine is either not active or not existing, then those functions cease. This is consistent with my lack of perception before I was born. Therefore I can also postulate that when I die, my brain will again not function -- just like a microwave that can no longer turn on to heat things. Only, unlike a microwave, whose job is to... microwave, my brain is a machine with a greater number of capabilities (including perception and consciousness) that will no longer be "running."

Why postulate this, when you admitted that you can't be sure?
Maybe MrRubix is just less than 0,0000000001% of your entire existence. You really don't have the necessary information to postulate this.

I mean, for example: I will always perceive only matter, with this material body. That's obvious, because they are made from the same matter. Because of this, am I supposed to postulate that this matter is everything that exists?
I'm sorry, but this is just not right.

In your argument, though, you assume that we are beings with some sort of "perception separated from mind separated from body" thing going on. Let us define "X" as that external entity from the mind then -- the underlying structure of your black screen perception argument. Again, please answer my question: Does a computer have X? Does a cat? Does a colony of bacteria? What about one single-celled organism? How about a rock? A tree? A drop of water? An ocean?

Well, like I said before, you cannot prove the existence of an observer other than yourself. So I just don't try to answer these questions, I can't. I know that I exist, and this is the strongest truth I've ever known. Based on this truth, I started thinking about this one thing I'm absolutely sure exists, and now I have a view of existence that makes more sense, feels more certain, to me. That's what I did. It's not just faith, not just assumptions based on comfort.

Do you see the difference?

Yes. Do you see my point?

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Well, here's one concept for you: Confirmation bias.

Seems reasonable. Of course, I don't know exactly what happened, because it was my uncle's story. The ceiling could be really cracked and stuff.
But I also emphasized how he felt that the dream was a strong sign. I mean, his daughter could die.

It doesn't prove anything, but is an interesting case nevertheless.