Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Reach: Read my answers to MrRubix.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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.

This doesn't tell me anything. All you're saying is "my experiences and thoughts convince me. I can't tell you why. Just think about it, though." Explain why it's so strong for you -- if you're going to bring up examples like the "ceiling incident," then I'd say those are hardly "experiences" but rather common human misunderstandings of probability/causality/bias.

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.

But I think you're better off going from evidence than pure speculation. You say you believe in an intelligence. That is an example of a "maybe" that is without sufficient evidence compared to all the other examples we have of natural processes.

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.

OF COURSE I can postulate that. Your response is, again, just another "maybe." Like myself and Reach have said, we know there are causal links between various sensory devices in our brains and our interpretation of those stimuli. Again, we can knock out certain areas of the brain and see how behavior/perception changes. There are countless experiments and pieces of evidences to site for this, as there's an entire realm of study for it. If you're going to say "Well you can't be sure!" regarding these functions, I dare say you're being intentionally ignorant. I can knock out a specific part of your brain and kill your sight. I can kill your hearing -- your sense of smell, taste, touch, memory, balance, certain drives, etc. There is a vast number of functions running at once that compose our perception of the world and our thought processes, and they all are causally linked to the brain. Therefore, we can postulate that when NONE of the brain is working, NONE of your perception is working. Otherwise it is like trying to argue that a hot dog is still a hot dog even after I've eaten it and shat it out in the form of massively violent projectile diarrhea. It's like arguing that a computer is still a computer with all the functionalities of a computer... even if I smash it to bits. It's like arguing that a waterwheel still works as a waterwheel on some higher plane of existence when the water has run dry. The brain is no different.

There is no perception without the brain, since your brain is what gives you your perception. I don't see why you are debating this point. Despite all this evidence, you're still saying "Well, you can't be sure!" You may as well say that about everything that we've determined causal links for. You may as well assume that the pursuit of truth is useless because "We could always be wrong." The entire point of the pursuit of knowledge is to learn more about our surroundings and come closer to the truth. To just pass it aside and say "You can't be sure!" is useless and solves nothing. Again, why believe in a "Maybe" when you can take a piece of evidence that gives more information leading to a closer truth? You say "You don't have the necessary information" when you're disregarding other vital pieces of information altogether that give us the ability to postulate something. This is the crucial error you're making that has been pointed out by myself, Reach, Devonin, and others.

I mean, 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.

Now it's my turn to say "You don't know that's right," except this time, you're still making the same mistake as before. Like Reach said, there is no way for us to prove or disprove things outside our realm of interpretation. All we can do is go from the evidence. Otherwise, you're invoking an arbitrary belief that is just as valid as any other random belief.

You're making assumptions that there MUST be this or MUST be that or there MUST be something to our perceptions outside our brains or there MUST be something outside our universe and all the matter it contains. None of this stuff is with any evidence whatsoever. There's no way for us to tell one way or the other. One proposed theory is just as good as another when it comes to realms of the completely and utterly unknown. If you're going to believe in an extra dimension, then why don't you believe in the extra dimension with Sonic collecting rings? Or my Magical Peanut-Butter-Jar-Hand Fairy? It's totally arbitrary at that level, and my point is that an arbitrary belief is infinitely weaker than a belief that is justified with evidence that is consistent and in itself justified.

In epistemology we can say we "know" something to be "true" when it is a "justified true belief." I advise you to check this concept a bit.

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.

If that is the only truth you're going to accept, then I dare say you'll have a very hard time making any statements of truth about anything else at all -- because it seems like you'll just say "Well, I can never be sure" even when faced with overwhelming evidence.

Yes. Do you see my point?

Yes, I see your point, but I think on a practical level, you're taking epistemology way too hard to the floor if you're just going to throw your hands up and assume "Everything could be false. Nothing might be real. However, there are all these other explanations without evidence that I am going to believe in regardless." It's a glaringly big contradiction in your own thought process. You're going to say that your own existence is the only truth you hold, and yet you'll, in the same breath, say you believe in a higher intelligence.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

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.

It's interesting, but just because something is interesting does mean it's indicative of some external truth. Dreams are generally lousy at doing much of anything -- they're simply residual processes from other processes that occur when we're resting. The fact that he "feels it was a strong sign" doesn't really mean much.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

It's interesting, but just because something is interesting does mean it's indicative of some external truth. Dreams are generally lousy at doing much of anything -- they're simply residual processes from other processes that occur when we're resting. The fact that he "feels it was a strong sign" doesn't really mean much.

Yes, I said "it doesn't prove anything". You don't need to make arguments when someone agrees with you.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Well, what are your "personal experiences"?

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

This doesn't tell me anything. All you're saying is "my experiences and thoughts convince me. I can't tell you why. Just think about it, though." Explain why it's so strong for you -- if you're going to bring up examples like the "ceiling incident," then I'd say those are hardly "experiences" but rather common human misunderstandings of probability/causality/bias.

What happened to my uncle has nothing to do with "observer experiences". I thought it was obvious. I'll try to explain my thoughts.

OF COURSE I can postulate that. Your response is, again, just another "maybe."... I advise you to check this concept a bit.

Ok. I read everything. And I am about to feed your monstrous pride: You're right, I was doing a mistake.

Well, yes, obviously, I know that the brain is necessary. I didn't say that I don't need my brain to live, that would be stupid. And I don't want you to doubt absolutely everything, no matter how much evidence there is, even though that's what it seemed. I don't do that. I've met people who actually do that... People who just doubt everything. They are annoying, I know.

Maybe I've been obnoxious, too. But absolutely everybody is against me, here, and I am unable to truly express the strongest thing that makes me believe in what I do.

But I still don't think you're right about everything: There are situations in which we can and should question the previous postulations, and that's exactly what happened to me.

We should return to the thing that originated this part of the discussion, the black screen thing: You said it wouldn't work because I would be ignoring physical facts, namely, the postulations you mentioned.

There is evidence that perception depends on the brain. We know that. However, when I started thinking about the space where first person experiences occur, I couldn't conceive the creation of this space, no matter how much I thought about it. It was unacceptable.
I considered the following possibility, since it seemed to make sense: While we exist in a space with a material configuration equal to this universe's, we are limited to a brain or similar object that is composed of the same matter. However, we can still not be limited to a single brain, in our entire existence. That's it.

We can now discuss the black screen, if you want to know why I am so convict of this non-creation of the observer. Of course, we can only do that if you allow yourself to question some postulations, like I did.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

But I still don't think you're right about everything: There are situations in which we can and should question the previous postulations, and that's exactly what happened to me.

Alright, then if you think I am incorrect, tell me why. Which postulations have I made that you think are incorrect? What is it about the concept of evidence-based knowledge derivation that you wish to deviate from? Can you give an example?

We should return to the thing that originated this part of the discussion, the black screen thing: You said it wouldn't work because I would be ignoring physical facts, namely, the postulations you mentioned.

There is evidence that perception depends on the brain. We know that. However, when I started thinking about the space where first person experiences occur, I couldn't conceive the creation of this space, no matter how much I thought about it. It was unacceptable.
I considered the following possibility, since it seemed to make sense: While we exist in a space with a material configuration equal to this universe's, we are limited to a brain or similar object that is composed of the same matter. However, we can still not be limited to a single brain, in our entire existence. That's it.

We can now discuss the black screen, if you want to know why I am so convict of this non-creation of the observer. Of course, we can only do that if you allow yourself to question some postulations, like I did.

What do you mean by "However, we can still not be limited to a single brain, in our entire existence. That's it."? We are indeed, as humans, limited to our physical components. Are you again saying that we are something more than our body and mind?

Why do you assume that creation of an observer is so impossible? I think you're trying too hard to visualize what you "perceive" before you are human, which isn't possible (hence the "black screen"). You're trying to understand how it is you can go from complete nonexistence to suddenly "having a perspective." Again, we can postulate how this works on a physical level.

If the components aren't there, we can't perceive. We are able to perceive the instant the correct components are present and functioning. That is the start of our observation and our existence as an observer. What is it about this concept you have trouble with? Just because you can't perceive what it would be like, you assume it's false?

Your inner mind is really just a bunch of processes -- you have your eyes, nerves, ears, etc all giving you sensory data, like cameras or microphones. You have areas of your brain that associate and store memory, both long and short term. So far, we're really just like a computer. So how come we are able to make choices? Unlike a computer, we aren't "designed" for something else to control us... directly. We have an internal thought process that governs how we access those memories and how we interpret our sensory data -- and this process is our consciousness and inherent sentience.

It, too, is causally linked (this is one of those points where many may disagree, via the hard determinism vs. free will argument -- but there is far more evidence to suggest that we are deterministic creatures). By this I mean, every decision we make is the result of a deterministic process -- if I choose to eat a donut in the morning, for example, am I doing so randomly? Or did I arrive at this decision because of what my other bodily processes were telling me? What decisions am I factoring in? Maybe it's as simple as "I haven't had one in a while," where I may have already come to a conclusion from prior processes that I favor diversity of options, etc. My point is that even our thought processes can be modeled as deterministic. Even emotions, which are hardwired response mechanisms of our brain -- can be viewed as deterministic. When your body gets punched by a random noob, your brain interprets this data and may trigger an anger/fight response.

Even your responses in this thread can be deterministic. You interpret my words, and your internal processing mechanism triggers a comparison between the data you read and the data you already possess (your beliefs), and in turn your brain accesses that data and combines it with your ability to utilize language, which translates your thoughts into words (our brain is basically hardwired for this already). Of course, this is also edited by other processes of your psyche too (maybe you have a predilection for phrasing things a certain way, or maybe you put importance on tact, etc). My point here is that even your "inner sentience" is really just a process.

My other point here is that it's consistent with science and actually easier to understand the human form/brain when you view it as a massively complex computer. We have all sorts of internal processing functions that take in data from our sensory organs -- that's really all our consciousness and perception are. And so it doesn't make sense to think about "what we were doing or interpreting or seeing" before we existed, because our structures didn't exist yet. Our mothers hadn't "built" us yet in the womb.

You may be trying to think of it as "Alright, without my body, where is my true mind? Am I a black screen morphing into existence when I am born as my perception is created?" when it's really "My body IS where my mind and perception is." When you assemble a human, it's not like some external entity/spirit "enters" the body and gives it life, personality, sentience, etc. The sheer CREATION of that physical vessel DEFINES the components that COMPOSE our internal "selves." Before you were born, you were nowhere. Your cumulative "human perception" came into existence once all the individual components "turned on." If you want to think of it this way, think of it as if the birthing process created your physical body, complete with all the necessary components for taking in sensory data. Ears, eyes, mouth, nerves, etc. Purely for detection of data. Then there is the more complex portion of the brain that "interprets" this data internally -- once this forms, you are "perceiving and interpreting." This is where your entire perception springs to existence. And yet, is it still just as causal.

I don't know that the order is in terms of the birthing process, but I'm phrasing it in this way to help explain why the black screen argument isn't sufficient in explaining this -- but the physical component argument is. The order is irrelevant -- the point is that all of these components DO form and once they work together, you have a human perception.

That was a bit of a windy post that was basically stream-of-consciousness dumping... let me know what you think.

[Mollocephalus]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

that was a great post, wish i could articulate my thoughts in engrish like rubix.

just replying to one little thing. when you (mhss) try to figure out what originated everything, why do you start from the concept anything had to be originated? as far as we know, the particles that compose the universe cannot be destroyed nor created. they can only change their shape, energy level, and position. beginning/end are human concepts relative to the changes in the environment humanity has experienced ever since dawn of planet earth. but if you were to think about it, that is not correct. when we define something as "ended", we are just creating a construct to better understand and collocate events, objects and situations. the reality is everything translates from a status to the another. life itself is only a temporary status of certain aggregated atoms before they translate back into the natural cycle. by knowing this, it's pretty naive to look for a start for everything, when you can easily experience how things gradually morph into each other. i'm tempted to assume, for consistency, that this may also apply to greater levels. that said, what makes you so sure that universe had to be originated?

your concept of different gods creating each other is just avoiding the obstacle. in such a scenario, where an universe morphs into the other in an endless cycle, god is not needed. in your vision, it's there just because you want it there. it's there because you want to call by that name everything you perceive so out of your reach.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Alright, then if you think I am incorrect, tell me why. Which postulations have I made that you think are incorrect? What is it about the concept of evidence-based knowledge derivation that you wish to deviate from? Can you give an example?

Aren't we talking about the black screen? That was the example I gave. We haven't really discussed it, yet.

You don't agree that postulations can be questioned? Hasn't this happened several times, in the history of humanity?

What do you mean by "However, we can still not be limited to a single brain, in our entire existence. That's it."? We are indeed, as humans, limited to our physical components. Are you again saying that we are something more than our body and mind?

Well, yes. I told you, that's what the thought experiment indicates, to me. But you are still denying it even before we have truly discussed it.

Why do you assume that creation of an observer is so impossible? I think you're trying too hard to visualize what you "perceive" before you are human, which isn't possible (hence the "black screen"). You're trying to understand how it is you can go from complete nonexistence to suddenly "having a perspective." Again, we can postulate how this works on a physical level.

It's not only about what I perceived before I was born. There are several other thoughts and situations where the black screen can be considered. I will post some of them after this reply.

If the components aren't there, we can't perceive. We are able to perceive the instant the correct components are present and functioning. That is the start of our observation and our existence as an observer. What is it about this concept you have trouble with? Just because you can't perceive what it would be like, you assume it's false?

No. Well, I guess I just answered that right before this quote.

Your inner mind is really just a bunch of processes -- you have your eyes, nerves, ears, etc all giving you sensory data, like cameras or microphones. You have areas of your brain that associate and store memory, both long and short term. So far, we're really just like a computer. So how come we are able to make choices? Unlike a computer, we aren't "designed" for something else to control us... directly. We have an internal thought process that governs how we access those memories and how we interpret our sensory data -- and this process is our consciousness and inherent sentience.

It, too, is causally linked (this is one of those points where many may disagree, via the hard determinism vs. free will argument -- but there is far more evidence to suggest that we are deterministic creatures). By this I mean, every decision we make is the result of a deterministic process -- if I choose to eat a donut in the morning, for example, am I doing so randomly? Or did I arrive at this decision because of what my other bodily processes were telling me? What decisions am I factoring in? Maybe it's as simple as "I haven't had one in a while," where I may have already come to a conclusion from prior processes that I favor diversity of options, etc. My point is that even our thought processes can be modeled as deterministic. Even emotions, which are hardwired response mechanisms of our brain -- can be viewed as deterministic. When your body gets punched by a random noob, your brain interprets this data and may trigger an anger/fight response.

Did I ever say it wasn't deterministic? I like determinism just like you do. I've even said it before: we make our choices based on what we consider more satisfactory. That is never random.

Even your responses in this thread can be deterministic. You interpret my words, and your internal processing mechanism triggers a comparison between the data you read and the data you already possess (your beliefs), and in turn your brain accesses that data and combines it with your ability to utilize language, which translates your thoughts into words (our brain is basically hardwired for this already). Of course, this is also edited by other processes of your psyche too (maybe you have a predilection for phrasing things a certain way, or maybe you put importance on tact, etc). My point here is that even your "inner sentience" is really just a process.

I will also address qualia again in my next post. "Inner sentience" probably isn't as simple as you think.

My other point here is that it's consistent with science and actually easier to understand the human form/brain when you view it as a massively complex computer. We have all sorts of internal processing functions that take in data from our sensory organs -- that's really all our consciousness and perception are. And so it doesn't make sense to think about "what we were doing or interpreting or seeing" before we existed, because our structures didn't exist yet. Our mothers hadn't "built" us yet in the womb.

So, you will never allow anyone to ever question this?
When I admitted my mistake, that didn't mean I agreed we should take these postulations as absolute truths. Absolute truth is a really complicated issue, and requires much more than that. Most philosophers agree with that. You should know this.
And, like I said, it's not just about how it was before we were born. You should assume these truths after we discuss these, not before.

I don't know that the order is in terms of the birthing process, but I'm phrasing it in this way to help explain why the black screen argument isn't sufficient in explaining this -- but the physical component argument is. The order is irrelevant -- the point is that all of these components DO form and once they work together, you have a human perception.

Okay, I think you got my point, we haven't discussed the black screen, entirely. Next post... (wait a few minutes. If I don't think I have enough time to post it now, I'll go to college and post it in a few hours)

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

just replying to one little thing. when you (mhss) try to figure out what originated everything, why do you start from the concept anything had to be originated? as far as we know, the particles that compose the universe cannot be destroyed nor created...

Actually, I said exactly the contrary.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

Inner sentience actually IS simple. Again, it's merely just an algorithmic process governed by determinism that accesses all the sensory inputs and internal memory storages. Imagine what it would be like to be born without any sensory data whatsoever. No sight, no hearing, no touch, no smell, no taste. Just your inner consciousness.

Regarding the black screen argument, you would then have to agree that there are infinitely many black screens because we can make infinitely many humans. The notion's a little offputting because it's basically no different than the explanation of "infinitely many possibilities" which is really just a function of opportunity and not so much what actually exists -- meaning black screens really may not exist. My point is that the black screen argument is without proof (we can't prove or disprove it), but we do have all sorts of other proof that sufficiently explains what happens when we are born as well as what happens when we die. Trying to understand "what nothing feels like" with respect to creation or destruction of an observer is irrelevant, because we can't interpret "nothing." It's nothing. Besides, would you then say black screens are limited only to humans? Again, I'll bring up my list again: Does a human relate to black screens? A cat? A computer? A rock? A drop of water? An ocean? What dictates such a screen? Sentience? Then why make the assumption in the first place? As far as we can tell, it's entirely arbitrary and no different from any other "maybe."

Again, my point is that we actually have proof to describe what happens before and after death, as given by my view in this thread. We cannot prove or disprove, however, the black screen argument. Could it be true? "Maybe." But it doesn't get us any closer to truth, and it's certainly more complex than the explanation we DO have proof for. We can already explain this phenomenon with the physical argument in sufficient detail that is consistent with any other example we could ever possibly bring up that we also have proof for.

Tangent:
Our entire perception of existence -- our entire domain -- is limited by the time we're alive. This is why I think life is such a massively awesome opportunity. We have billions of years where nothing happens regarding human life -- our atoms just chilling around in the stars in an ever-constant morph, and then poof! For a tiny, tiny, tiny sliver of time out of the universe's duration, we are alive and able to seek utility and happiness before we disappear again into the void of nonexistence. This is why I despise the concept of murder probably more than most.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

I don't remember having discussed the black screen entirely. The black screen obviously exists, because... We feel it. That's all the proof there is.
Have a little patience... I'm still finishing the text.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

What? The black screen doesn't "obviously exist." Are you sure your concept of a black screen isn't really just another function of our physical processes at work, here? Again, all you know is what you experience and perceive as long as your brain's active.

[mhss1992]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

What? The black screen doesn't "obviously exist." Are you sure your concept of a black screen isn't really just another function of our physical processes at work, here? Again, all you know is what you experience and perceive as long as your brain's active.

I said this several times: The concept of observer is real regardless of it being material or not. If you feel the darkness, it is real, obviously.

[MrRubix]

Re: Metaphysics, intelligence, God

But an observer needs to be material in our universe, as far as we know. Your entire being is material. You've always existed in the form of atoms, but only during the past decade or two have they been arranged in the form of YOU. An observer is only real when it is in the form of an observer. We can't prove or disprove a non-material observer, because no such thing exists in a way we can verify.

I mean, it gets into the question: "What is an observer?" Is the tree observing the grass? No, because it doesn't have sentience or input devices. Does the empty space between atoms observe atoms? No, because no structure exists in the first place to DO any observing. We define ourselves as observers because we have the necessary components and processing necessary TO observe.

Again, you're referring to a concept we can't prove or disprove, because as material beings in a material universe, an observer is also material, since an observer is comprised of material components. We do not "feel" darkness. When we are not in "observer form," we are not observing and thus are feeling nothing.

There is a difference between 0 and null.