|
On April 01 2015 04:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 01:39 IgnE wrote: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.
I think the part getting left out (possibly on purpose) is that what one thinks happens after their life impacts how they live their life. Choosing to believe or whatever usually carries with it the denial of several earthly pleasures. So the loss to being wrong about an afterlife isn't 0. As an example, if someone abstains from sex their whole life do to some belief in an afterlife they have certainly lost something if they die and the afterlife they expected doesn't exist. Whereas the repeating reward of sex is certainly a benefit to choosing not to believe. So by choosing not God/Afterlife you do get something you wouldn't get otherwise and therefor isn't making a choice that give you no rewards.
|
Which is what I was talking about in the previous page when I showed why the cost value of personal sacrifice weighs differently between believers and non-believers...
Edit::
Also, not all negotiations are te abstaining of earthly pleasures. Among the infinite choices there are dionycese type gods who only want revelry and excess as well. It's really about what each person feels is real.
|
It is precisely NOT a good argument against atheist behavior. What the fuck are you talking about? It's not an argument for any specific behavior at all because any specific behavior can result in any of an infinite number of outcomes. The wager only makes sense if you privilege one or a handful of options over others, but for our purposes here we haven't privileged any.
|
There's nothing to privilege.
What do you get if you're correct that nothing happens? Nothing.
What do you get if you're correct that something happens? Something.
What do you get if the choice you made was wrong? The same thing as all the other infinity minus one choices got.
The chance you have of going to hell is meaningless. But if you're belief is that life leads to nothing and you get nothing for being correct--what is gained? Nothing.
|
On April 01 2015 05:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Which is what I was talking about in the previous page when I showed why the cost value of personal sacrifice weighs differently between believers and non-believers...
Edit::
Also, not all negotiations are te abstaining of earthly pleasures. Among the infinite choices there are dionycese type gods who only want revelry and excess as well. It's really about what each person feels is real.
That's fine but then
Choosing rewards that give you nothing of you were right is illogical to him.
that statement just isn't accurate. Choosing not to believe in any afterlife has a potential pay-off unless you go out of your way to construct something that doesn't. So if one sees it as illogical they are just ignoring that the choice doesn't, in fact, have no reward for being right.
|
On April 01 2015 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's nothing to privilege.
What do you get if you're correct that nothing happens? Nothing.
What do you get if you're correct that something happens? Something.
What do you get if the choice you made was wrong? The same thing as all the other infinity minus one choices got.
The chance you have of going to hell is meaningless. But if you're belief is that life leads to nothing and you get nothing for being correct--what is gained? Nothing.
This isn't true because given infinite possibilities, some of those possibilities will require you to choose wrong to receive the reward. I.E. a world in which only non-believers go to heaven. Or even worse, a world in which believers are punished.
For every afterlife where a correct guess is rewarded, there is one exactly opposite. I.E. a correct guess is punished. There's no way to hedge your bets or count cards or whatever when the odds are all equal.
|
On April 01 2015 04:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 01:24 excitedBear wrote: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.
I see I wasn't very careful with my words then.
When I say consciousness doesn't exist without a functioning brain, it is how I define consciousness.
Based on scientific findings, any other definition is currently not verifiable.
That's as good as it currently gets.
That doesnt mean that another definition of consciousness doesn't exist.
I just don't take it into account because there is no way to confirm it.
|
On April 01 2015 05:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's nothing to privilege.
What do you get if you're correct that nothing happens? Nothing.
What do you get if you're correct that something happens? Something.
What do you get if the choice you made was wrong? The same thing as all the other infinity minus one choices got.
The chance you have of going to hell is meaningless. But if you're belief is that life leads to nothing and you get nothing for being correct--what is gained? Nothing. This isn't true because given infinite possibilities, some of those possibilities will require you to choose wrong to receive the reward. I.E. a world in which only non-believers go to heaven. Or even worse, a world in which believers are punished. For every afterlife where a correct guess is rewarded, there is one exactly opposite. I.E. a correct guess is punished. There's no way to hedge your bets or count cards or whatever when the odds are all equal.
Only if you assume multiple correct answers.
You will always be statistically wrong, but only one will be correct. The presence of opposite options to the correct conclusion does not contradict the correct conclusion.
In a random set of N the presence of diametrically opposed options does not negate each other's existence one or the other has been selected.
|
On April 01 2015 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 05:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Which is what I was talking about in the previous page when I showed why the cost value of personal sacrifice weighs differently between believers and non-believers...
Edit::
Also, not all negotiations are te abstaining of earthly pleasures. Among the infinite choices there are dionycese type gods who only want revelry and excess as well. It's really about what each person feels is real. That's fine but then Show nested quote +Choosing rewards that give you nothing of you were right is illogical to him. that statement just isn't accurate. Choosing not to believe in any afterlife has a potential pay-off unless you go out of your way to construct something that doesn't. So if one sees it as illogical they are just ignoring that the choice doesn't, in fact, have no reward for being right.
Correct.
Go back a few pages to my X+ Y = T arguments where I show why I agree with the stance that there is value in life that is difficult for believers to understand.
|
On April 01 2015 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's nothing to privilege.
A What do you get if you're correct that nothing happens? Nothing.
B What do you get if you're correct that something happens? Something.
C What do you get if the choice you made was wrong? The same thing as all the other infinity minus one choices got.
The chance you have of going to hell is meaningless. But if you're belief is that life leads to nothing and you get nothing for being correct--what is gained? Nothing.
No dude. Your A also the premise A2 that is:
A2 What do you get if you're incorrect that nothing happens? The same thing as all the other infinity minus one choices got.
B2 What do you get if you're incorrect that something happens? Nothing.
It's possible that not-believing is the only way to get into the afterlife. So it doesn't matter one way or the other whether you believe in something rather than nothing. This is the fundamental concept here and you don't seem to be getting it.
|
On April 01 2015 07:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's nothing to privilege.
A What do you get if you're correct that nothing happens? Nothing.
B What do you get if you're correct that something happens? Something.
C What do you get if the choice you made was wrong? The same thing as all the other infinity minus one choices got.
The chance you have of going to hell is meaningless. But if you're belief is that life leads to nothing and you get nothing for being correct--what is gained? Nothing. No dude. Your A also the premise A2 that is: A2 What do you get if you're incorrect that nothing happens? The same thing as all the other infinity minus one choices got. B2 What do you get if you're incorrect that something happens? Nothing. It's possible that not-believing is the only way to get into the afterlife. So it doesn't matter one way or the other whether you believe in something rather than nothing. This is the fundamental concept here and you don't seem to be getting it.
Actually, you reached the same point pascal was at.
Incorrectly choosing no afterlife punishes you
Incorrectly choosing there is an afterlife does not punish you
Limited, of course, by the binary comparison of only two absolutes, but pascal had his own biases too so your at least in good company.
When you're willing to expand your view further id be welcome to the conversation.
|
On April 01 2015 06:10 excitedBear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 04:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2015 01:24 excitedBear wrote: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. I see I wasn't very careful with my words then. When I say consciousness doesn't exist without a functioning brain, it is how I define consciousness. Based on scientific findings, any other definition is currently not verifiable. That's as good as it currently gets. That doesnt mean that another definition of consciousness doesn't exist. I just don't take it into account because there is no way to confirm it.
No disagreement from me. It's just easy to get into speaking in absolutes when a discussion gets heated which is tricky when talking about something as delicate as the nature of causality, assumptions, and perceptions
|
A while ago I was at a barcraft event thing and at the end of the night I was pretty drunk and I saw a guy carry his friend down the stairs and I thought they were fucking around and said something like "you guys are so cute" or something dumb like that. It was not meant to be insulting. In my drunk head I was just participating in the big nonsense joke. Outside of the venue, I noticed that the guy who was being carried was in a wheelchair.
I didn't go apologize or anything, because it was pretty loud and I wasn't even sure they heard me. I don't know just how shitty it was of me but I still have nightmares (almost literally) about it. Am I horrible?
|
On April 01 2015 07:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 05:43 Millitron wrote:On April 01 2015 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's nothing to privilege.
What do you get if you're correct that nothing happens? Nothing.
What do you get if you're correct that something happens? Something.
What do you get if the choice you made was wrong? The same thing as all the other infinity minus one choices got.
The chance you have of going to hell is meaningless. But if you're belief is that life leads to nothing and you get nothing for being correct--what is gained? Nothing. This isn't true because given infinite possibilities, some of those possibilities will require you to choose wrong to receive the reward. I.E. a world in which only non-believers go to heaven. Or even worse, a world in which believers are punished. For every afterlife where a correct guess is rewarded, there is one exactly opposite. I.E. a correct guess is punished. There's no way to hedge your bets or count cards or whatever when the odds are all equal. Only if you assume multiple correct answers. You will always be statistically wrong, but only one will be correct. The presence of opposite options to the correct conclusion does not contradict the correct conclusion. In a random set of N the presence of diametrically opposed options does not negate each other's existence one or the other has been selected.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying that the mere existence of opposite options disproves it, I'm saying that there are mutually exclusive options, all of which are equally likely.
You can't say that belief in X is a smart decision because you'll receive Y reward if it's equally likely that belief in X will cause you to receive Z punishment.
|
is there any theoretical way to get close to or surpass the speed of light while somehow managing to avoid the problem off time dilation?
|
On April 01 2015 08:34 Djzapz wrote:
A while ago I was at a barcraft event thing and at the end of the night I was pretty drunk and I saw a guy carry his friend down the stairs and I thought they were fucking around and said something like "you guys are so cute" or something dumb like that. It was not meant to be insulting. In my drunk head I was just participating in the big nonsense joke. Outside of the venue, I noticed that the guy who was being carried was in a wheelchair.
I didn't go apologize or anything, because it was pretty loud and I wasn't even sure they heard me. I don't know just how shitty it was of me but I still have nightmares (almost literally) about it. Am I horrible?
Do you have a prior history of ridiculing the disabled and those who assist them?
How drunk were you? Did it impair your decision making ability?
Was the stairwell well lit or was it dimly lit?
|
On April 01 2015 08:58 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 07:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2015 05:43 Millitron wrote:On April 01 2015 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's nothing to privilege.
What do you get if you're correct that nothing happens? Nothing.
What do you get if you're correct that something happens? Something.
What do you get if the choice you made was wrong? The same thing as all the other infinity minus one choices got.
The chance you have of going to hell is meaningless. But if you're belief is that life leads to nothing and you get nothing for being correct--what is gained? Nothing. This isn't true because given infinite possibilities, some of those possibilities will require you to choose wrong to receive the reward. I.E. a world in which only non-believers go to heaven. Or even worse, a world in which believers are punished. For every afterlife where a correct guess is rewarded, there is one exactly opposite. I.E. a correct guess is punished. There's no way to hedge your bets or count cards or whatever when the odds are all equal. Only if you assume multiple correct answers. You will always be statistically wrong, but only one will be correct. The presence of opposite options to the correct conclusion does not contradict the correct conclusion. In a random set of N the presence of diametrically opposed options does not negate each other's existence one or the other has been selected. You misunderstand. I'm not saying that the mere existence of opposite options disproves it, I'm saying that there are mutually exclusive options, all of which are equally likely. You can't say that belief in X is a smart decision because you'll receive Y reward if it's equally likely that belief in X will cause you to receive Z punishment.
Which is why Pascal's wager is clever in it's attack on atheist-like beliefs. The reward for not believing in an afterlife is nothing. The reward for getting the right guess on a possible afterlife is something. Even if there's an equally likely chance that your choice damns you--if you get it right you at least have something.
Pascal didn't care about the results or what was correct. He was asking about making logical presumptions. His flaw was the cost of each action being uneven, but his initial premise remains the same. If nothing happens then there is nothin gained when you die (assuming you were right), you get no reward regardless of being right or wrong.
When you choose something, you suddenly get two possible rewards, you are either correct and receive good things, or you are wrong and get no reward. Logically, a chance at getting a reward is worth more than the certainty of not getting a reward.
|
Probably a silly point but.... "Atheist" doesn't mean someone doesn't believe in an afterlife. People who absolutely believe in no possibility for an afterlife do not represent all atheists.
|
On April 01 2015 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 08:58 Millitron wrote:On April 01 2015 07:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 01 2015 05:43 Millitron wrote:On April 01 2015 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
There's nothing to privilege.
What do you get if you're correct that nothing happens? Nothing.
What do you get if you're correct that something happens? Something.
What do you get if the choice you made was wrong? The same thing as all the other infinity minus one choices got.
The chance you have of going to hell is meaningless. But if you're belief is that life leads to nothing and you get nothing for being correct--what is gained? Nothing. This isn't true because given infinite possibilities, some of those possibilities will require you to choose wrong to receive the reward. I.E. a world in which only non-believers go to heaven. Or even worse, a world in which believers are punished. For every afterlife where a correct guess is rewarded, there is one exactly opposite. I.E. a correct guess is punished. There's no way to hedge your bets or count cards or whatever when the odds are all equal. Only if you assume multiple correct answers. You will always be statistically wrong, but only one will be correct. The presence of opposite options to the correct conclusion does not contradict the correct conclusion. In a random set of N the presence of diametrically opposed options does not negate each other's existence one or the other has been selected. You misunderstand. I'm not saying that the mere existence of opposite options disproves it, I'm saying that there are mutually exclusive options, all of which are equally likely. You can't say that belief in X is a smart decision because you'll receive Y reward if it's equally likely that belief in X will cause you to receive Z punishment. Which is why Pascal's wager is clever in it's attack on atheist-like beliefs. The reward for not believing in an afterlife is nothing. The reward for getting the right guess on a possible afterlife is something. Even if there's an equally likely chance that your choice damns you--if you get it right you at least have something. Pascal didn't care about the results or what was correct. He was asking about making logical presumptions. His flaw was the cost of each action being uneven, but his initial premise remains the same. If nothing happens then there is nothin gained when you die (assuming you were right), you get no reward regardless of being right or wrong. When you choose something, you suddenly get two possible rewards, you are either correct and receive good things, or you are wrong and get no reward. Logically, a chance at getting a reward is worth more than the certainty of not getting a reward.
What the fuck are you talking about? Can you even read? Millitron and I have been saying the same thing to you repeatedly. In this scenario it's possible that you might get a reward for being an atheist. There is no rational way to choose whether to believe or not to believe if you don't know anything about what happens after death.
There is no difference in expected outcome for a believer or a non-believer. There is no difference of any kind between belief and non-belief. This idea that you have about atheists cutting off some miniscule 1/N chance of being rewarded is not true.
|
On April 01 2015 09:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2015 08:34 Djzapz wrote:
A while ago I was at a barcraft event thing and at the end of the night I was pretty drunk and I saw a guy carry his friend down the stairs and I thought they were fucking around and said something like "you guys are so cute" or something dumb like that. It was not meant to be insulting. In my drunk head I was just participating in the big nonsense joke. Outside of the venue, I noticed that the guy who was being carried was in a wheelchair.
I didn't go apologize or anything, because it was pretty loud and I wasn't even sure they heard me. I don't know just how shitty it was of me but I still have nightmares (almost literally) about it. Am I horrible? Do you have a prior history of ridiculing the disabled and those who assist them? How drunk were you? Did it impair your decision making ability? Was the stairwell well lit or was it dimly lit?
-I have no prior history of ridiculing the disabled or people who assist them. I would never do that.
-I was drunk enough that I definitely couldn't drive. Not sure how impaired my decisionmaking was but I wasn't completely batshit stupid. Just pretty dumb. I've been much much worse (but it really isn't the norm, I'm an an alcoholic)
-I have no reliable memory of the stairwell's lighting, but if memory does serve, it wasn't dark, nor well lit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
