|
On June 16 2010 02:30 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 01:49 Kim_Hyun_Han wrote:On June 16 2010 01:41 Impervious wrote:
No.
Arbitrary is like "I don't like BDSM, so it's bad". Random is like "Flip a coin, heads and it's bad, tails and it's good".
And I'm interested in seeing where you are taking this. now here is what i mean not all rules are arbitrary cultural, religious,regional and polictical influences in it may be, but i'm totally for the highest degree of purity and order, of if it hurts instead of cure, if it destroys instead of build up, if it causes pain for no reason, if it steals for no explainable reason, if it causes disorder just for pleasure of chaos, these things you know. But i get your point of view, i just believe that to put things real in life the whole theorycrafting and questioning must be put aside to a certain degree(of course) or things would never come out of paper Actually, those influences cause pretty arbitrary differences..... They're far from random..... Something like war is terrible, right? It kills people and destroys stuff. It is chaotic. Did you know that computers were developed to model the trajectories of artillery during war? Vehicles had many technological innovations due to wars. Jet engines were created for war, now used for many, many other uses. Nuclear power was an off-shoot of the atomic bomb programs. Communication devices were created, such as the world wide web. New surgical techniques were developed, as were medicines and treatments. And many, many more things. Our lives would be very different without wars. The technology generated during war has definitely saved and enriched more lives in the long term than it has cost. Is it a terrible thing? That's for you to decide. But nothing is as black-and-white as you seem to try to make it out.....
then thats it we're done for now
we can draw good things even from bad wounds
|
On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 14:20 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 13:58 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 13:19 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 13:09 3clipse wrote:
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it. Well, how about the fact that conscious experience is not necessary nor serves any function in a material universe. All that we do could happen without consciousness. I disagree. I doubt any being could function with the adaptive capabilities, perception and complex thought patterns as humanity without developing a consciousness of oneself. really? rocks fall, do they have to experience falling? waves crash, do they have to experience crashing? we do a lot more than falling and crashing. we are highly complex instruments which actively seek to prevent themselves falling. a rock will never attempt to prevent itself falling. so why do we need to experience our own adaptive ability and logic internally then, right? to me it seems like a natural product of the ability to analyse data and then analyse your analysis. in fact, this seems obvious to me so i have no doubt im oversimplifiying it and am interested for you to expand on your comments about consciousness and whether or not it is necessary or valuable to human (or other) function. i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe.
ok, back to this
you say
we do a lot more than falling and crashing. we are highly complex instruments which actively seek to prevent themselves falling. a rock will never attempt to prevent itself falling.
but you also say
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe.
these statements appear contradictory and fall in line with what I am saying about consciousness being unnecessary for the function of the universe. if we are not actually in control of our thoughts and actions(determinism), then what is the role of consciousness? You seem to answer it yourself by saying
don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe
but that's contradictory to
so why do we need to experience our own adaptive ability and logic internally then, right? to me it seems like a natural product of the ability to analyse data and then analyse your analysis.
anyways, buddha knew all about the necessity of conscious experience. in fact he eliminated it from his life. that's my goal as well.
|
On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe.
There's an idea similar to this that's bugging me. I've had a bunch of deja vu experiences (maybe I'm hallucinating, or my brain is screwing with me, lol. I have looked up possible causes for the phenomenon). What usually happens is I see an image in a dream, and then I see that same "photo" as I go through my every day life.
I'll go through the first one I had, a silly one. We were leaving a mountain bike race and were in the car, when my brother said he was missing a gameboy game. I opened the door and saw the game sitting in the grass, Super Mario Advance 3, and it just hit me, that I'd seen this image before, and time kind of slowed. Really weird.
Anyways, this has led me to believe that time is cyclical, so we may be living the same lives over and over. Not really the same as determinism, but similar in that we can't change our futures. IDK, it's really confusing to me.
|
On June 16 2010 04:38 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe. There's an idea similar to this that's bugging me. I've had a bunch of deja vu experiences (maybe I'm hallucinating, or my brain is screwing with me, lol. I have looked up possible causes for the phenomenon). What usually happens is I see an image in a dream, and then I see that same "photo" as I go through my every day life. I'll go through the first one I had, a silly one. We were leaving a mountain bike race and were in the car, when my brother said he was missing a gameboy game. I opened the door and saw the game sitting in the grass, Super Mario Advance 3, and it just hit me, that I'd seen this image before, and time kind of slowed. Really weird. Anyways, this has led me to believe that time is cyclical, so we may be living the same lives over and over. Not really the same as determinism, but similar in that we can't change our futures. IDK, it's really confusing to me.
I believe in rebirth for a reason. If you slow down and examine things that happen in life I find that there are clearly schemes that are going on, there are patterns to things I experience. The universe works out in certain ways.
You might be interested in reading about the buddhist views of karma and rebirth.
|
I'll look into it, Those monks usually look pretty at peace, so they must have some answers they're not telling us.
|
On June 16 2010 04:38 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe. There's an idea similar to this that's bugging me. I've had a bunch of deja vu experiences (maybe I'm hallucinating, or my brain is screwing with me, lol. I have looked up possible causes for the phenomenon). What usually happens is I see an image in a dream, and then I see that same "photo" as I go through my every day life. I'll go through the first one I had, a silly one. We were leaving a mountain bike race and were in the car, when my brother said he was missing a gameboy game. I opened the door and saw the game sitting in the grass, Super Mario Advance 3, and it just hit me, that I'd seen this image before, and time kind of slowed. Really weird. Anyways, this has led me to believe that time is cyclical, so we may be living the same lives over and over. Not really the same as determinism, but similar in that we can't change our futures. IDK, it's really confusing to me.
how was your life established, then, for the first time? you cant have a repeat without a source. did the complete and endless cycle just pop into existence like that, with all of its reruns? i think that doesnt make sense and we dont need it.
|
On June 16 2010 05:34 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2010 04:38 eLiE wrote:On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe. There's an idea similar to this that's bugging me. I've had a bunch of deja vu experiences (maybe I'm hallucinating, or my brain is screwing with me, lol. I have looked up possible causes for the phenomenon). What usually happens is I see an image in a dream, and then I see that same "photo" as I go through my every day life. I'll go through the first one I had, a silly one. We were leaving a mountain bike race and were in the car, when my brother said he was missing a gameboy game. I opened the door and saw the game sitting in the grass, Super Mario Advance 3, and it just hit me, that I'd seen this image before, and time kind of slowed. Really weird. Anyways, this has led me to believe that time is cyclical, so we may be living the same lives over and over. Not really the same as determinism, but similar in that we can't change our futures. IDK, it's really confusing to me. how was your life established, then, for the first time? you cant have a repeat without a source. did the complete and endless cycle just pop into existence like that, with all of its reruns? i think that doesnt make sense and we dont need it.
the universe having a start actually makes less sense to me logically than it always having been
|
Who says there has to be a start or an end? To take this to an elementary level, look at a circle. I agree with travis, because if there was a start, then what was there before the start, and then what will there be at the end? If there was something before the universe started, is that when time started? If it was, what is a place before that where there is no time? Sounds like a place that is eternal, never starting or ending.
EDIT: Lets keep going. I think this would lead to a paradox, If time has a start and end point, then wouldn't the place before the start and after the finish be eternal?
|
On June 16 2010 05:48 eLiE wrote:
Who says there has to be a start or an end? To take this to an elementary level, look at a circle. I agree with travis, because if there was a start, then what was there before the start, and then what will there be at the end? If there was something before the universe started, is that when time started? If it was, what is a place before that where there is no time? Sounds like a place that is eternal, never starting or ending.
EDIT: Lets keep going. I think this would lead to a paradox, If time has a start and end point, then wouldn't the place before the start and after the finish be eternal? i think an infinite universe is just as hard to grasp by the human mind as the concept of a first cause. but that was not my concern. i was more focused on the repetition of the same life/universe instead of just a cycle.
in other words, im fine with a universe thats expanding and contracting cyclically, but not with the way you want to explain deja-vu, nor with rebirth.
i will admit, though, that this is an emotional thing and not something i can determine with conclusive, clean argumentation. i think its pretty hard to sort out.
|
On June 16 2010 01:06 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe. I have the same view myself. However I would say consciousness is still very different from material reactions. Material reactions are objectively observable and measurable. Consciousness is not, it is purely subjective and not measurable or observable in any objective fashion. I've got work to do. I shouldn't be in this thread right now. I'll come back later lol.
that is only true to an extent. we know a non trivial amount about the relationship between thought and the brain. we can't observe a brain being self aware but we can observe a brain thinking and to me being self aware is still just particularely advanced problem solving and analysis software.
On June 16 2010 04:34 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:On June 15 2010 14:20 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 13:58 3clipse wrote:On June 15 2010 13:19 travis wrote:On June 15 2010 13:09 3clipse wrote:
Your argument boils down to the classic "even if you can prove natural processes have caused x, you cannot prove that god did not cause those natural processes". I don't need to prove that. The onus is on you to provide cause for supernatural explanation if you are citing "evidences" of it. Well, how about the fact that conscious experience is not necessary nor serves any function in a material universe. All that we do could happen without consciousness. I disagree. I doubt any being could function with the adaptive capabilities, perception and complex thought patterns as humanity without developing a consciousness of oneself. really? rocks fall, do they have to experience falling? waves crash, do they have to experience crashing? we do a lot more than falling and crashing. we are highly complex instruments which actively seek to prevent themselves falling. a rock will never attempt to prevent itself falling. so why do we need to experience our own adaptive ability and logic internally then, right? to me it seems like a natural product of the ability to analyse data and then analyse your analysis. in fact, this seems obvious to me so i have no doubt im oversimplifiying it and am interested for you to expand on your comments about consciousness and whether or not it is necessary or valuable to human (or other) function. i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe. ok, back to this you say Show nested quote +
we do a lot more than falling and crashing. we are highly complex instruments which actively seek to prevent themselves falling. a rock will never attempt to prevent itself falling.
but you also say Show nested quote +
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe.
these statements appear contradictory and fall in line with what I am saying about consciousness being unnecessary for the function of the universe. if we are not actually in control of our thoughts and actions(determinism), then what is the role of consciousness? You seem to answer it yourself by saying
i don't believe those statements are contradictory. we are not in control of our thoughts and actions but our body is still very responsible for how successful we are in life. for instance if your body is immune to lethaldiseaseX then if at some point the universe subjects you to lethaldiseaseX you will not perish where another body might. in the same way a powerful brain with a consciousness may be the key to protecting you from other threats. im not sure if it is clear but none of that procludes determinism. (your body was always going to be immune to lethaldiseaseX at that time due to...)
no more time, work.. meep!
|
im catholic, but i now that genesis wasnt written to be taken 100%truth, its a tale, just like many cultures have their "beggining of the universe" tale or myth, this is the jew tale of the jew culture, written for the jew people
and as someone said, kids would probably look on wikipedia first
|
On June 16 2010 04:38 eLiE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2010 23:18 Lachrymose wrote:
i'm not sure if it's relevant but i believe in determinism and therefore view free will as an illusion and consequently don't believe consciousness to be any different from other reactions in the universe. There's an idea similar to this that's bugging me. I've had a bunch of deja vu experiences (maybe I'm hallucinating, or my brain is screwing with me, lol. I have looked up possible causes for the phenomenon). What usually happens is I see an image in a dream, and then I see that same "photo" as I go through my every day life. I'll go through the first one I had, a silly one. We were leaving a mountain bike race and were in the car, when my brother said he was missing a gameboy game. I opened the door and saw the game sitting in the grass, Super Mario Advance 3, and it just hit me, that I'd seen this image before, and time kind of slowed. Really weird. Anyways, this has led me to believe that time is cyclical, so we may be living the same lives over and over. Not really the same as determinism, but similar in that we can't change our futures. IDK, it's really confusing to me.
oh man, i had an experience like that too. I had a dream about being forced to stay in a mental institution, and when i was watching the butterfly effect, i realized it was the exact same building. I felt extremely uneasy after that....
|
Actually this is the way it all happened.
![[image loading]](http://www.venganza.org/fsmdrawing.jpg)
... the dinosaurs are behind the mountains if you wonder.
-------------------------------------------
Morals... oh morals.
Just like other rule systems they will always have exceptions.
Consider situation :
You are a driver on a train, which cannot be stopped or slowed and the rail track is splitting...
1. On one track there is one man, on the other track there are ten men.
Which track do you chose?
2. On one track is mother Teresa, on the other there is a random convict..
3. You have 3rd choice to derail the train, thus to kill yourself...
4. On one track there are 10 good people and 10 serial killers on the other track there is 10 average business men...
...
What do you do?
Do you try to interfere, or don't do anything?
Are you willing to sacrifice yourself in order to save someone else?
How do you count value of group of different people?
Where do your morals say?
|
On June 16 2010 16:56 LastWish wrote:Actually this is the way it all happened. ... the dinosaurs are behind the mountains if you wonder. ------------------------------------------- Morals... oh morals. Just like other rule systems they will always have exceptions. Consider situation : You are a driver on a train, which cannot be stopped or slowed and the rail track is splitting... 1. On one track there is one man, on the other track there are ten men. Which track do you chose? 2. On one track is mother Teresa, on the other there is a random convict.. 3. You have 3rd choice to derail the train, thus to kill yourself... 4. On one track there are 10 good people and 10 serial killers on the other track there is 10 average business men... ... What do you do? Do you try to interfere, or don't do anything? Are you willing to sacrifice yourself in order to save someone else? How do you count value of group of different people? Where do your morals say?
http://www.justiceharvard.org/
did you by any chance follow this at all, or did your example come from elsewhere? :o
|
Actually I don't have a specific source, I just happen to have some friends with who I often discuss dilemmatic topics.
Interesting site though, I'll definitely check it out.
|
On June 16 2010 07:41 dan_dark wrote:
im catholic, but i now that genesis wasnt written to be taken 100%truth, its a tale, just like many cultures have their "beggining of the universe" tale or myth, this is the jew tale of the jew culture, written for the jew people
and as someone said, kids would probably look on wikipedia first
Dun u think jews/catholics/christians/muslim somewhat share the same book?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
