|
On March 31 2015 22:42 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2015 11:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 30 2015 11:00 IgnE wrote:
There's also an infinite number of hells you might fall into. How can you avoid it? And why would you assume that all N-1 options have hells? There are an infinite number options with hell (or similar) post life outcomes. And also an infinite number without hell (or similar) outcomes. There are an infinite number of things that might happen after we die, since we cannot observe this, we cannot be certain of which is what happens. Of those options, only one option has it be that nothing happens--but there are an infinite number of ways to produce that outcome (including God/s being real and specifically making sure humanity has no afterlife all the way to there being nothing happening at all) Stop being so limiting in your way of seeing the world as a binary of god vs no god when the discussion of an afterlife is far more complex and infinite than that. Lol dude. I made the point in one sentence and it takes you two pages of discussion and Acrofales's multi-paragraph statement to knock it into your head that you haven't thought anything through. I was explicitly not speaking of a binary outcome. The very fact that you don't know anything about the infinite possibilities rules out action taken in view of any of them. If there are an infinite number of hells that you can go to for doing an infinite number of things you cannot rationally avoid them any more than you can aim for heaven. If anything Pascal is the one who is trapped in a binary.
Avoiding hells has nothing to do with anything.
All choices are statistically wrong when chosen--pascal's wager asks about the benefits if the path you chose was correct. If you chose the path with no benefits, then you benefit nothing, if you choose the path with benefits, then you at least statistically have a chance, no matter how small, of benefitting something.
You're statistically likely to go to some hell like existence no matter your choice because you will always be wrong. But neither what I talked about or what pascal talks about cares one fuck about going to hell.
|
On March 27 2015 08:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
because it's circularly defined to be that way. if the soul is something that's metaphysical and can persist without the physical structure of the brain (but obviously contains elements of one's character characteristic to the brain), then it's metaphysical and can't be falsified by any physical experiments doable in the physical world. "where the soul resides" begs the question that the soul is a physical "thing" at all, which many people would dispute.
Any definition that does not define consciousness as the result of brain processes is metaphysical and therefore not worth talking about.
Consciousness starts and ends with a functioning brain. Beyond that it does not exist. It is the same concept as time doesn't exist before the big bang.
|
On March 31 2015 23:17 excitedBear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2015 08:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
because it's circularly defined to be that way. if the soul is something that's metaphysical and can persist without the physical structure of the brain (but obviously contains elements of one's character characteristic to the brain), then it's metaphysical and can't be falsified by any physical experiments doable in the physical world. "where the soul resides" begs the question that the soul is a physical "thing" at all, which many people would dispute.
Any definition that does not define consciousness as the result of brain processes is metaphysical and therefore not worth talking about. Consciousness starts and ends with a functioning brain. Beyond that it does not exist. It is the same concept as time doesn't exist before the big bang.
Thank you for making it clear that you haven't understood a single thing oneofthem said. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, bravo!
|
On March 31 2015 22:28 ComaDose wrote:
also if you include the possibility that the supernatural alternate plane hostess only lets in atheists then the odds are all the same.
There are a few general buckets.
Nothing happens
Bad things will happen regardless
Good things happen regardless
Bad things happen "unless you..."
Good things happen "unless you..."
Recursion
If you believe good/bad things happens regardless, that changes how you value things right now depending on how you imagine eternity will be spent. This is similar to the null state since nothing we do while alive will affect the outcome, but the infinite is still present after death which will give the believer the sense of smallness to living life before death. (Example, Cthulu, if we are all damned to hell regardless then why bother doing anything selfless? No matter what happens in this life you'll just live an eternity in anguish anyway.)
If you believe good/bad things happen due to your direct or indirect actions, then you follow those arbitrary rules to best maximize the good and minimize the bad. Most atheist that want to get angry at Pascal only wants to disprove/diminish this possibility for the most part. This and recursion takes up the most space in the infinite possibilities since I all the infinite possibilities, they are the only ones that have variations on choice and actions pre-death and hence are the ones that people can point to for possible rewards. By choosing one of these paths, and being correct, then you have a higher chance of getting a reward than simply choosing a truly random N. (Example, Valhalla, would make believers in it more bloodthirsty, warmongering, and violent in an effort to go to heaven)
If you believe in recursion, then things get a bit weird depending which version you believe in. Infinite recursion is usually seen as reincarnation while limited recursion is usually brain in the jar/dream state effects. Both have completely opposite effects on the psyche and I am not experience enough to know what that mindset would be like.
Null events where nothing happens is the most boring and is not relegated to just Atheists. For the most part, there are an infinite number of variations for it--but the reward an requirements for gaining that reward remains the same so they all fall I the same bucket. (Example, non-human centric god, if god was actually a shrimp and only cared for the salvation of shrimp then nothing happens when we humans die for we are not shrimp. This would result in the same thing as atheism in that no matter the end result variation no reward is given regardless)
|
On March 31 2015 23:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 23:17 excitedBear wrote:On March 27 2015 08:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
because it's circularly defined to be that way. if the soul is something that's metaphysical and can persist without the physical structure of the brain (but obviously contains elements of one's character characteristic to the brain), then it's metaphysical and can't be falsified by any physical experiments doable in the physical world. "where the soul resides" begs the question that the soul is a physical "thing" at all, which many people would dispute.
Any definition that does not define consciousness as the result of brain processes is metaphysical and therefore not worth talking about. Consciousness starts and ends with a functioning brain. Beyond that it does not exist. It is the same concept as time doesn't exist before the big bang. Thank you for making it clear that you haven't understood a single thing oneofthem said. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, bravo!
Not sure what you mean, I thought I made it clear that for me logical positivism is the only way to go.
You have other beliefs, good for you.
|
On March 31 2015 23:30 excitedBear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 23:20 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2015 23:17 excitedBear wrote:On March 27 2015 08:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
because it's circularly defined to be that way. if the soul is something that's metaphysical and can persist without the physical structure of the brain (but obviously contains elements of one's character characteristic to the brain), then it's metaphysical and can't be falsified by any physical experiments doable in the physical world. "where the soul resides" begs the question that the soul is a physical "thing" at all, which many people would dispute.
Any definition that does not define consciousness as the result of brain processes is metaphysical and therefore not worth talking about. Consciousness starts and ends with a functioning brain. Beyond that it does not exist. It is the same concept as time doesn't exist before the big bang. Thank you for making it clear that you haven't understood a single thing oneofthem said. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, bravo! Not sure what you mean, I thought I made it clear that for me logical positivism is the only way to go. You have other beliefs, good for you.
Being certain that currently unobservable things don't exist is very Catholic Inquisition of you, bravo.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well that particular post wasn't that bad, except the part about meaninglessness. i basically said the same thing with respect to the cartesian cogito "i."
soul is pretty bad metaphysics, but i wouldn't call it meaningless. an object doesn't have to exist to have meaning, or be significant for the speakers. it is when one starts to take the soul seriously as a distinct and real object that i would object. but if you are using soul as analogy, or within the peculiar human faculty of understanding one another as persons, saying stuff like "this music is soulful," or "the beautiful soul of this person." those things are perfectly fine. we know what these expressions mean and what they refer to. reference is distinct from semantics.
in general human meaning is not defined or confined by any particular philosophical theory. (and whether one is aware of having a theory is irrelevant, saying x is meaningless is still a meta level statement and thus theory) living is itself an empirical exercise, and putting theory above what life offers is necessarily restrictive. i won't call any religion not false, but i also would not dismiss them as meaningless. they are obviously gripping for believers, and are legitimate ways of life.
|
On March 31 2015 23:20 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 23:17 excitedBear wrote:On March 27 2015 08:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
because it's circularly defined to be that way. if the soul is something that's metaphysical and can persist without the physical structure of the brain (but obviously contains elements of one's character characteristic to the brain), then it's metaphysical and can't be falsified by any physical experiments doable in the physical world. "where the soul resides" begs the question that the soul is a physical "thing" at all, which many people would dispute.
Any definition that does not define consciousness as the result of brain processes is metaphysical and therefore not worth talking about. Consciousness starts and ends with a functioning brain. Beyond that it does not exist. It is the same concept as time doesn't exist before the big bang. Thank you for making it clear that you haven't understood a single thing oneofthem said. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, bravo!
Oh, and would you care to enlighten us farvacola? There's nothing interesting about anything oneofthem has said. The crux of his argument is that scientific knowledge that has given all of our technology, our means of controling the environment around us cannot be proven to be taken as true, because of the assumption that reality has causality, is merely an assumption. It's boring and it doesn't lead anywhere. Not to mention that as far as anybody but the insane (literally), reality do follow assumptions. When you move parts of your body, your arm doesn't just simply disappear and reappear somewhere else for instance. When you throw a ball the same way within set conditions, it does tend to land in the same place. When you put food in your fridge, the food doesn't disappear unless someone has eaten it when you weren't looking. If you put an object in a box, when you open the box, the object will still be there. When you fall asleep in your bed in your room, you don't wake up on the moon. When you look into a mirror, that is a reflection of your person, not another person. These are all assumptions. Basically oneofthem has said something you think is immensely interesting to you, or you don't fully grasp the concept, but really it is dreadfully circular and mundane and ultimately leads nowhere.
|
That was an impressive amount of text to reiterate your points again magpie. to get back on the topic of stupid questions while reincarnation is relevant; If you are as bad as hitler and you come back as a slug or something, would you not be a great slug and then come back as an indian billionaire? what are those billions of insects doing so bad that they cant come back with higher level thinking?
|
On March 31 2015 23:46 ComaDose wrote:
That was an impressive amount of text to reiterate your points again magpie. to get back on the topic of stupid questions while reincarnation is relevant; If you are as bad as hitler and you come back as a slug or something, would you not be a great slug and then come back as an indian billionaire? what are those billions of insects doing so bad that they cant come back with higher level thinking?
I have no direct experience believing in Reincarnation. I have no real idea what its like to have that kind of mindset. I can discuss finite reincarnations (Brain in the jar, life is just a computer program, we are the figment of some diety's imagination, etc...) but that direct die => another person/animal/object is beyond my ken. How does one feel when one believes that? I have no clue as to where their impetus or passions lie when they're infinite reward is to relive life differently than they are living it now.
|
I thought this was an ask and answer stupid question thread, not ask unanswerable questions thread.
|
The biggest flaw in this mind set, in my point, would be that the way you order a "good/higher life" compared to a "bad/lower" life is completely subjective.
Why would you consider being a random beetle in a random forest any worse than being (any) human?
I don't think the higher thinking is a good argument. For instance you have a huge diversity of level of thinking even in the human race, but how can you define a ranking? Education (which is also very subjective)? Money? Power? length of the third left metatarsi?
|
On April 01 2015 00:32 AbouSV wrote:
The biggest flaw in this mind set, in my point, would be that the way you order a "good/higher life" compared to a "bad/lower" life is completely subjective.
Why would you consider being a random beetle in a random forest any worse than being (any) human?
I don't think the higher thinking is a good argument. For instance you have a huge diversity of level of thinking even in the human race, but how can you define a ranking? Education (which is also very subjective)? Money? Power? length of the third left metatarsi?
good point I wana come back as a bird so i can fly that would be sweet.
|
On March 31 2015 23:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 23:30 excitedBear wrote:On March 31 2015 23:20 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2015 23:17 excitedBear wrote:On March 27 2015 08:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
because it's circularly defined to be that way. if the soul is something that's metaphysical and can persist without the physical structure of the brain (but obviously contains elements of one's character characteristic to the brain), then it's metaphysical and can't be falsified by any physical experiments doable in the physical world. "where the soul resides" begs the question that the soul is a physical "thing" at all, which many people would dispute.
Any definition that does not define consciousness as the result of brain processes is metaphysical and therefore not worth talking about. Consciousness starts and ends with a functioning brain. Beyond that it does not exist. It is the same concept as time doesn't exist before the big bang. Thank you for making it clear that you haven't understood a single thing oneofthem said. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, bravo! Not sure what you mean, I thought I made it clear that for me logical positivism is the only way to go. You have other beliefs, good for you. Being certain that currently unobservable things don't exist is very Catholic Inquisition of you, bravo.
Reducing logical positivism to Mach is the same as reducing modern philosophy to Descartes.
That was only when things got started.
|
On April 01 2015 00:59 excitedBear wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 23:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 31 2015 23:30 excitedBear wrote:On March 31 2015 23:20 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2015 23:17 excitedBear wrote:On March 27 2015 08:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
because it's circularly defined to be that way. if the soul is something that's metaphysical and can persist without the physical structure of the brain (but obviously contains elements of one's character characteristic to the brain), then it's metaphysical and can't be falsified by any physical experiments doable in the physical world. "where the soul resides" begs the question that the soul is a physical "thing" at all, which many people would dispute.
Any definition that does not define consciousness as the result of brain processes is metaphysical and therefore not worth talking about. Consciousness starts and ends with a functioning brain. Beyond that it does not exist. It is the same concept as time doesn't exist before the big bang. Thank you for making it clear that you haven't understood a single thing oneofthem said. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, bravo! Not sure what you mean, I thought I made it clear that for me logical positivism is the only way to go. You have other beliefs, good for you. Being certain that currently unobservable things don't exist is very Catholic Inquisition of you, bravo. Reducing logical positivism to Mach is the same as reducing modern philosophy to Descartes. That was only when things got started.
Being certain you know something exists or not is the opposite of Logical Positivism.
|
On April 01 2015 00:39 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 00:32 AbouSV wrote:
The biggest flaw in this mind set, in my point, would be that the way you order a "good/higher life" compared to a "bad/lower" life is completely subjective.
Why would you consider being a random beetle in a random forest any worse than being (any) human?
I don't think the higher thinking is a good argument. For instance you have a huge diversity of level of thinking even in the human race, but how can you define a ranking? Education (which is also very subjective)? Money? Power? length of the third left metatarsi? good point I wana come back as a bird so i can fly that would be sweet.
Can we come back as concepts?
Like being reincarnated into the nervous feeling right before a first date?
|
On April 01 2015 01:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 00:59 excitedBear wrote:On March 31 2015 23:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 31 2015 23:30 excitedBear wrote:On March 31 2015 23:20 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2015 23:17 excitedBear wrote:On March 27 2015 08:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
because it's circularly defined to be that way. if the soul is something that's metaphysical and can persist without the physical structure of the brain (but obviously contains elements of one's character characteristic to the brain), then it's metaphysical and can't be falsified by any physical experiments doable in the physical world. "where the soul resides" begs the question that the soul is a physical "thing" at all, which many people would dispute.
Any definition that does not define consciousness as the result of brain processes is metaphysical and therefore not worth talking about. Consciousness starts and ends with a functioning brain. Beyond that it does not exist. It is the same concept as time doesn't exist before the big bang. Thank you for making it clear that you haven't understood a single thing oneofthem said. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, bravo! Not sure what you mean, I thought I made it clear that for me logical positivism is the only way to go. You have other beliefs, good for you. Being certain that currently unobservable things don't exist is very Catholic Inquisition of you, bravo. Reducing logical positivism to Mach is the same as reducing modern philosophy to Descartes. That was only when things got started. Being certain you know something exists or not is the opposite of Logical Positivism.
You speak in riddles. First you attack LP by making a statement (referring to Mach's certainty that atoms don't exist).
Then you retract the statement by saying it has nothing to do with LP in the first place.
|
On March 31 2015 23:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 22:42 IgnE wrote:On March 30 2015 11:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 30 2015 11:00 IgnE wrote:
There's also an infinite number of hells you might fall into. How can you avoid it? And why would you assume that all N-1 options have hells? There are an infinite number options with hell (or similar) post life outcomes. And also an infinite number without hell (or similar) outcomes. There are an infinite number of things that might happen after we die, since we cannot observe this, we cannot be certain of which is what happens. Of those options, only one option has it be that nothing happens--but there are an infinite number of ways to produce that outcome (including God/s being real and specifically making sure humanity has no afterlife all the way to there being nothing happening at all) Stop being so limiting in your way of seeing the world as a binary of god vs no god when the discussion of an afterlife is far more complex and infinite than that. Lol dude. I made the point in one sentence and it takes you two pages of discussion and Acrofales's multi-paragraph statement to knock it into your head that you haven't thought anything through. I was explicitly not speaking of a binary outcome. The very fact that you don't know anything about the infinite possibilities rules out action taken in view of any of them. If there are an infinite number of hells that you can go to for doing an infinite number of things you cannot rationally avoid them any more than you can aim for heaven. If anything Pascal is the one who is trapped in a binary. Avoiding hells has nothing to do with anything. All choices are statistically wrong when chosen--pascal's wager asks about the benefits if the path you chose was correct. If you chose the path with no benefits, then you benefit nothing, if you choose the path with benefits, then you at least statistically have a chance, no matter how small, of benefitting something. You're statistically likely to go to some hell like existence no matter your choice because you will always be wrong. But neither what I talked about or what pascal talks about cares one fuck about going to hell.
Hell is infinite loss. Pascal cared about it and so does your question. There are an infinite number of paths with infinite loss.
|
On April 01 2015 01:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 23:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 31 2015 22:42 IgnE wrote:On March 30 2015 11:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 30 2015 11:00 IgnE wrote:
There's also an infinite number of hells you might fall into. How can you avoid it? And why would you assume that all N-1 options have hells? There are an infinite number options with hell (or similar) post life outcomes. And also an infinite number without hell (or similar) outcomes. There are an infinite number of things that might happen after we die, since we cannot observe this, we cannot be certain of which is what happens. Of those options, only one option has it be that nothing happens--but there are an infinite number of ways to produce that outcome (including God/s being real and specifically making sure humanity has no afterlife all the way to there being nothing happening at all) Stop being so limiting in your way of seeing the world as a binary of god vs no god when the discussion of an afterlife is far more complex and infinite than that. Lol dude. I made the point in one sentence and it takes you two pages of discussion and Acrofales's multi-paragraph statement to knock it into your head that you haven't thought anything through. I was explicitly not speaking of a binary outcome. The very fact that you don't know anything about the infinite possibilities rules out action taken in view of any of them. If there are an infinite number of hells that you can go to for doing an infinite number of things you cannot rationally avoid them any more than you can aim for heaven. If anything Pascal is the one who is trapped in a binary. Avoiding hells has nothing to do with anything. All choices are statistically wrong when chosen--pascal's wager asks about the benefits if the path you chose was correct. If you chose the path with no benefits, then you benefit nothing, if you choose the path with benefits, then you at least statistically have a chance, no matter how small, of benefitting something. You're statistically likely to go to some hell like existence no matter your choice because you will always be wrong. But neither what I talked about or what pascal talks about cares one fuck about going to hell. Hell is infinite loss. Pascal cared about it and so does your question. There are an infinite number of paths with infinite loss.
Sigh…
The hells do not matter since Pascal’s Wager discusses the benefits of being correct not the statistical chance of being correct.
You have N choices where N is infinite. Of those N choices, large swaths fit into these oversimplified buckets with infinite choices in each bucket.
(A) of those options provides no reward/punishment: choosing from this lot has no benefit.
(B) of those options provides no way to affect the reward/punishment: choosing from this lot has no benefit.
(C) of those options provides a reward/punishment, and a way to increase/decrease that reward/punishment: Pascal argues that it is illogical not to pursue this path since the other paths provides nothing.
Of all options we can choose, we only have 1/N chances of getting it right. Choosing to follow (A) or (B) provides the same benefit/punishment/oblivion as not choosing them. Choosing (C) provides the possibility of benefit that is only viable by choosing (C)
That is the core of Pascal’s Wager when taken to its unbiased extreme. The hells you reach and the heavens you reach are irrelevant since he is talking about making choices in a scenario with unknowable and unobservable repercussions.
If any of the infinite options in group (A) is correct—then nothing happens.
If any of the infinite options in group (B) is correct—then whatever happens would have happened no matter your choice.
If any of the infinite options in group (C) is correct—then you only have one shot at getting it right and actively choosing not to follow it is giving yourself less of a chance at fully living the totality of your life.
From this standpoint, Pascal’s Wager makes a lot of sense and is very much a good argument against Atheist-ish behavior. Assuming that the price being exacted by group (C) was valued equally by Non-believers vs Believers (which it isn’t)
No matter the choice you take, statistically speaking you will be wrong. But being wrong doesn’t matter, the benefits of being right is what is at stake and is what Pascal really cared for. Choosing rewards that give you nothing of you were right is illogical to him.
|
On April 01 2015 01:24 excitedBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 01:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2015 00:59 excitedBear wrote:On March 31 2015 23:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 31 2015 23:30 excitedBear wrote:On March 31 2015 23:20 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2015 23:17 excitedBear wrote:On March 27 2015 08:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
because it's circularly defined to be that way. if the soul is something that's metaphysical and can persist without the physical structure of the brain (but obviously contains elements of one's character characteristic to the brain), then it's metaphysical and can't be falsified by any physical experiments doable in the physical world. "where the soul resides" begs the question that the soul is a physical "thing" at all, which many people would dispute.
Any definition that does not define consciousness as the result of brain processes is metaphysical and therefore not worth talking about. Consciousness starts and ends with a functioning brain. Beyond that it does not exist. It is the same concept as time doesn't exist before the big bang. Thank you for making it clear that you haven't understood a single thing oneofthem said. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, bravo! Not sure what you mean, I thought I made it clear that for me logical positivism is the only way to go. You have other beliefs, good for you. Being certain that currently unobservable things don't exist is very Catholic Inquisition of you, bravo. Reducing logical positivism to Mach is the same as reducing modern philosophy to Descartes. That was only when things got started. Being certain you know something exists or not is the opposite of Logical Positivism. You speak in riddles. First you attack LP by making a statement (referring to Mach's certainty that atoms don't exist). Then you retract the statement by saying it has nothing to do with LP in the first place.
My personal opinions of LP does not affect the definitions of LP
Unless it can be observed or derived, LP has no say in it. But LP does not determine that things exist or don't exist, only if they are observable, derived, or unobservable. They have no say if it can't be observed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
