|
On July 02 2013 01:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 01:36 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 01:17 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 00:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:37 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:29 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 00:26 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Tobberoth, why didn't you respond to me saying that everything is more than the sum of its parts? That life and consciousness are non-unique in this regard? Because I already wrote several times that the whole point is that something is self-aware and can thus mourn itself being lost. A pen, a stone, or any other object you come up with are simply 100% impossible to compare, they lack the very thing I'm talking about. The computer doesn't give a shit if I light it on fire, but you would probably give a shit if I shot you with a gun. I might not care if I've been beaten unconscious but not dead. Living things are not always self-awareness. I fail to see how self-awareness is relevant actually. It's relevant because it can't be copied, like I wrote literally two posts ago. I'm self-aware. If I'm copied and die, I'm dead. The copy is identical to me in every way, but my individual perspective, my self-awareness is gone. Therefor, something is lost when I'm killed and copied, even though no one might ever notice or know. Something which isn't self-aware can never be compared because since no one else would notice and it can't notice or think about it itself, nothing is lost. I can kill a tree and copy it. The tree doesn't care, no one else knows. It's alive, but not self-aware, so there's no issue. Why isn't the self-awareness copied as well? Because there's a disconnect? So? You'd be here. Then you'd die and another you with your exact identity would be there. There might be disconnect, but people have disconnects all the time. Blinking? It sounds like you're just asserting that there is something magical that cannot be copied, and I don't know why. Exactly, because there's a very big difference between this disconnect and normal disconnects. When you blink, you're still you. When you sleep, you're still you. When you die and get copied, you're still you? Then what about if you get copied and AREN'T killed? There's obviously not a disconnect then you becoming two people at the same time, so there can't be a disconnect between the two forms at all. The self-awareness isn't copied, because the self-awareness is still with the original, whether you kill that original or not logically shouldn't have any impact. I should say though, that I definitely think the copy would have a disconnect like the one you're talking about, because if it was copied perfectly, it obviously has the exact same memories etc as the original.. so the copy would never realize anything was lost, only the dead original. The all concept you're missing is that you can't "copy" something in the sense you're trying to. That's what I was trying to say with my pens example. When you do an identical copy of a pen, you get 2 pens. Are those 2 pens the same pen ? NO. There is two pen, like everything else in the universe, they are unique. (one difference for example is that they are not at the same place, because it's physically impossible). Yes, you can't make a perfect copy of a pen. The same apply to your brain. If I copy it, there is 2 brains. After this point, they both have their own existence, they are not the same. If the original brain kills himself, then he is dead, it doesn't matter if there is a clone or what this clone is gonna do. Why do you need to bring a mystical soul into this ? Is there something that doesn't make sense in the concept of a purely material brain ? This sound very logical to me. Yes, but if you copy a pen, you get an identical pen. It's 100% identical. It's in a different spot, to be sure, but you could just vaporize the original pen and put the new pen there, and it would be as if you didn't do anything at all to the pen. The same isn't true for a human, because the original would experience it. This experience is what makes the difference I'm talking about, it's key to the whole concept for me. A living self-aware being is completely different to anything else we know in this very situation, even though it's just material in both senses. From an outside perspective, there's no difference between the pen copying and the human copying, I agree with that. From the perspective of the human, there's a huge difference, and this difference makes up what I'm talking about. It's far more important than the materials which make up the brain. Of course from the perspective of the human there is a difference, YOU DIED (you as in the original, not your identity). It doesn't matter how fast you make the copy / replacement and everything. You still did (a) a copy (b) a kill. My question is, what is the problem with that ? it is perfectly logical. You don't have to bring a soul into that. What? How is it perfectly logical to point to a hypothetical, human copying scenario as proof of anything other than the construction of a hypothetical? Are we supposed to say, "this can't be" or something?
hu ?
If you copy yourself then kill yourself in the process (or after), then you a dead. how is that not logical ?
|
On July 02 2013 01:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 01:15 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one  Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. That is false. Many materialists have hope(s). Unless you mean specifically hope for life after death. But that is not prevented by materialism, although most people think it is. No I mean that hope itself is just another biological urge, completely uncontrollable in any real sense. Your "hopes" are as meaningful as the dog's urge to procreate or the pigeon's urge to eat. You can say that you have hopes but "you" (in the sense that it is used) don't exist. You are just a bundle of inevitable sensations that at some point will cease to exist and have had no more effect upon the world than any other physical occurrence, probably much less than most. Your insignificance is entirely complete down to the fact that there is no you at all. It's a trick of the light, only there is no trick because a trick requires an illusion, an illusion requires a viewer, and we have no true viewer. We have machines that react to stimuli. Self-improvement is not a choice, nor is it anything more than a nonsensical string of words. Is it better for the machine to do A than it is to do B? Who says? The machine itself? It was biologically designed to say so. There is no objectively better, and no objectively worse. The murderer has committed no outrageous act by slaying the fellow machine, he has just performed a biologically inevitable action that resulted in other biologically inevitable actions. Nothing can be done to change the inevitable, and the machines simply experience the inevitable occurring, if it could even be called experience as the machines themselves do not exist except as a series of outputs. The love you hold is not love and you do not hold it. It is a biological inevitability wrapped within a biological inevitability. Entirely without meaning or purpose. Personally, I find the utter rejection of these truths to be the ultimate evidence against the philosophical position that implies them. The fact that the materialist searches (in vain, according to his/her own beliefs) for "hope" is proof enough for me that at the deepest level, they do not wish for it to be true. The contradiction between what they claim is the logical view of reality and the emotional response to that view is quite telling. Ultimately, the materialist borrows hope from the spiritualist because the materialist has a spiritual being that yearns for recognition.
Lots of words...
My materialism, which is a belief, don't get me wrong, includes and explains all religions and spirituality.
I know that's bold. But I believe there are ways to explain all this without god, soul, life after death and reincarnation.
So... What now ?
|
On July 02 2013 01:36 DertoQq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 01:17 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 00:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:37 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:29 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 00:26 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Tobberoth, why didn't you respond to me saying that everything is more than the sum of its parts? That life and consciousness are non-unique in this regard? Because I already wrote several times that the whole point is that something is self-aware and can thus mourn itself being lost. A pen, a stone, or any other object you come up with are simply 100% impossible to compare, they lack the very thing I'm talking about. The computer doesn't give a shit if I light it on fire, but you would probably give a shit if I shot you with a gun. I might not care if I've been beaten unconscious but not dead. Living things are not always self-awareness. I fail to see how self-awareness is relevant actually. It's relevant because it can't be copied, like I wrote literally two posts ago. I'm self-aware. If I'm copied and die, I'm dead. The copy is identical to me in every way, but my individual perspective, my self-awareness is gone. Therefor, something is lost when I'm killed and copied, even though no one might ever notice or know. Something which isn't self-aware can never be compared because since no one else would notice and it can't notice or think about it itself, nothing is lost. I can kill a tree and copy it. The tree doesn't care, no one else knows. It's alive, but not self-aware, so there's no issue. Why isn't the self-awareness copied as well? Because there's a disconnect? So? You'd be here. Then you'd die and another you with your exact identity would be there. There might be disconnect, but people have disconnects all the time. Blinking? It sounds like you're just asserting that there is something magical that cannot be copied, and I don't know why. Exactly, because there's a very big difference between this disconnect and normal disconnects. When you blink, you're still you. When you sleep, you're still you. When you die and get copied, you're still you? Then what about if you get copied and AREN'T killed? There's obviously not a disconnect then you becoming two people at the same time, so there can't be a disconnect between the two forms at all. The self-awareness isn't copied, because the self-awareness is still with the original, whether you kill that original or not logically shouldn't have any impact. I should say though, that I definitely think the copy would have a disconnect like the one you're talking about, because if it was copied perfectly, it obviously has the exact same memories etc as the original.. so the copy would never realize anything was lost, only the dead original. The all concept you're missing is that you can't "copy" something in the sense you're trying to. That's what I was trying to say with my pens example. When you do an identical copy of a pen, you get 2 pens. Are those 2 pens the same pen ? NO. There is two pen, like everything else in the universe, they are unique. (one difference for example is that they are not at the same place, because it's physically impossible). Yes, you can't make a perfect copy of a pen. The same apply to your brain. If I copy it, there is 2 brains. After this point, they both have their own existence, they are not the same. If the original brain kills himself, then he is dead, it doesn't matter if there is a clone or what this clone is gonna do. Why do you need to bring a mystical soul into this ? Is there something that doesn't make sense in the concept of a purely material brain ? This sound very logical to me. Yes, but if you copy a pen, you get an identical pen. It's 100% identical. It's in a different spot, to be sure, but you could just vaporize the original pen and put the new pen there, and it would be as if you didn't do anything at all to the pen. The same isn't true for a human, because the original would experience it. This experience is what makes the difference I'm talking about, it's key to the whole concept for me. A living self-aware being is completely different to anything else we know in this very situation, even though it's just material in both senses. From an outside perspective, there's no difference between the pen copying and the human copying, I agree with that. From the perspective of the human, there's a huge difference, and this difference makes up what I'm talking about. It's far more important than the materials which make up the brain. Of course from the perspective of the human there is a difference, YOU DIED (you as in the original, not your identity). It doesn't matter how fast you make the copy / replacement and everything. You still did (a) a copy (b) a kill. My question is, what is the problem with that ? it is perfectly logical. You don't have to bring a soul into that.
You're right, you don't. But I think the whole discussion has been skewed from my original post. What I meant, even though I have at times explained it very badly, is that (like many other things indeed), there is more than the sum of the parts, and I find in the case of humans, this "extra" bit is so fundamentally important to us, that soul is a valid term for it IMO. Yeah, you can say that the brain is just chemistry and electricity (I'm pretty sure I even said so in my first post), but that belittles the parts we get from this specific process... the individualism, the self-awareness, the experiences. All of this together comes from these physical aspects, but are so immensely important to us. It makes sense to have a word for it, to see it as something more. I'm not talking about soul as a religious, external force. I'm talking about it as an immaterial important aspect of being alive.
|
Yeah, you can say that the brain is just chemistry and electricity (I'm pretty sure I even said so in my first post), but that belittles the parts we get from this specific process... the individualism, the self-awareness, the experiences.
What do you mean "just chemistry and electricity"? If chemistry and electricity are capable of generating something that immensely awesome and complex, then don't you think chemistry and electricity is incredible? What is this "just"?
Saying something is physical is saying that it is as real as real can be. It doesn't diminish your experiences. It only should raise up your view of the physical.
If love is chemical and electric, does that make love less real? No, it makes love more real. And makes reality more lovely.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 02 2013 02:04 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 01:36 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 01:17 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 DertoQq wrote:On July 02 2013 00:43 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:37 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 00:33 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:29 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 00:26 Tobberoth wrote:On July 02 2013 00:24 DoubleReed wrote:
Tobberoth, why didn't you respond to me saying that everything is more than the sum of its parts? That life and consciousness are non-unique in this regard? Because I already wrote several times that the whole point is that something is self-aware and can thus mourn itself being lost. A pen, a stone, or any other object you come up with are simply 100% impossible to compare, they lack the very thing I'm talking about. The computer doesn't give a shit if I light it on fire, but you would probably give a shit if I shot you with a gun. I might not care if I've been beaten unconscious but not dead. Living things are not always self-awareness. I fail to see how self-awareness is relevant actually. It's relevant because it can't be copied, like I wrote literally two posts ago. I'm self-aware. If I'm copied and die, I'm dead. The copy is identical to me in every way, but my individual perspective, my self-awareness is gone. Therefor, something is lost when I'm killed and copied, even though no one might ever notice or know. Something which isn't self-aware can never be compared because since no one else would notice and it can't notice or think about it itself, nothing is lost. I can kill a tree and copy it. The tree doesn't care, no one else knows. It's alive, but not self-aware, so there's no issue. Why isn't the self-awareness copied as well? Because there's a disconnect? So? You'd be here. Then you'd die and another you with your exact identity would be there. There might be disconnect, but people have disconnects all the time. Blinking? It sounds like you're just asserting that there is something magical that cannot be copied, and I don't know why. Exactly, because there's a very big difference between this disconnect and normal disconnects. When you blink, you're still you. When you sleep, you're still you. When you die and get copied, you're still you? Then what about if you get copied and AREN'T killed? There's obviously not a disconnect then you becoming two people at the same time, so there can't be a disconnect between the two forms at all. The self-awareness isn't copied, because the self-awareness is still with the original, whether you kill that original or not logically shouldn't have any impact. I should say though, that I definitely think the copy would have a disconnect like the one you're talking about, because if it was copied perfectly, it obviously has the exact same memories etc as the original.. so the copy would never realize anything was lost, only the dead original. The all concept you're missing is that you can't "copy" something in the sense you're trying to. That's what I was trying to say with my pens example. When you do an identical copy of a pen, you get 2 pens. Are those 2 pens the same pen ? NO. There is two pen, like everything else in the universe, they are unique. (one difference for example is that they are not at the same place, because it's physically impossible). Yes, you can't make a perfect copy of a pen. The same apply to your brain. If I copy it, there is 2 brains. After this point, they both have their own existence, they are not the same. If the original brain kills himself, then he is dead, it doesn't matter if there is a clone or what this clone is gonna do. Why do you need to bring a mystical soul into this ? Is there something that doesn't make sense in the concept of a purely material brain ? This sound very logical to me. Yes, but if you copy a pen, you get an identical pen. It's 100% identical. It's in a different spot, to be sure, but you could just vaporize the original pen and put the new pen there, and it would be as if you didn't do anything at all to the pen. The same isn't true for a human, because the original would experience it. This experience is what makes the difference I'm talking about, it's key to the whole concept for me. A living self-aware being is completely different to anything else we know in this very situation, even though it's just material in both senses. From an outside perspective, there's no difference between the pen copying and the human copying, I agree with that. From the perspective of the human, there's a huge difference, and this difference makes up what I'm talking about. It's far more important than the materials which make up the brain. Of course from the perspective of the human there is a difference, YOU DIED (you as in the original, not your identity). It doesn't matter how fast you make the copy / replacement and everything. You still did (a) a copy (b) a kill. My question is, what is the problem with that ? it is perfectly logical. You don't have to bring a soul into that. You're right, you don't. But I think the whole discussion has been skewed from my original post. What I meant, even though I have at times explained it very badly, is that (like many other things indeed), there is more than the sum of the parts, and I find in the case of humans, this "extra" bit is so fundamentally important to us, that soul is a valid term for it IMO. Yeah, you can say that the brain is just chemistry and electricity (I'm pretty sure I even said so in my first post), but that belittles the parts we get from this specific process... the individualism, the self-awareness, the experiences. All of this together comes from these physical aspects, but are so immensely important to us. It makes sense to have a word for it, to see it as something more. I'm not talking about soul as a religious, external force. I'm talking about it as an immaterial important aspect of being alive.
The concept of "experience" and "consciousness" in no way indicates the possible existence of a "soul", unless you are willing to ignore the process of emergence and ultimately explain something with an answer that brings up more questions than answers. There's also no need to burden the set of properties (which most animals have) with a phrase so metaphysical.
Something being purely physical does not make it lesser than something that never existed in the first place.
|
On July 02 2013 01:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 01:15 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. That is false. Many materialists have hope(s). Unless you mean specifically hope for life after death. But that is not prevented by materialism, although most people think it is. No I mean that hope itself is just another biological urge, completely uncontrollable in any real sense. Your "hopes" are as meaningful as the dog's urge to procreate or the pigeon's urge to eat. You can say that you have hopes but "you" (in the sense that it is used) don't exist. You are just a bundle of inevitable sensations that at some point will cease to exist and have had no more effect upon the world than any other physical occurrence, probably much less than most. Your insignificance is entirely complete down to the fact that there is no you at all. It's a trick of the light, only there is no trick because a trick requires an illusion, an illusion requires a viewer, and we have no true viewer. We have machines that react to stimuli. Self-improvement is not a choice, nor is it anything more than a nonsensical string of words. Is it better for the machine to do A than it is to do B? Who says? The machine itself? It was biologically designed to say so. There is no objectively better, and no objectively worse. The murderer has committed no outrageous act by slaying the fellow machine, he has just performed a biologically inevitable action that resulted in other biologically inevitable actions. Nothing can be done to change the inevitable, and the machines simply experience the inevitable occurring, if it could even be called experience as the machines themselves do not exist except as a series of outputs. The love you hold is not love and you do not hold it. It is a biological inevitability wrapped within a biological inevitability. Entirely without meaning or purpose. Personally, I find the utter rejection of these truths to be the ultimate evidence against the philosophical position that implies them. The fact that the materialist searches (in vain, according to his/her own beliefs) for "hope" is proof enough for me that at the deepest level, they do not wish for it to be true. The contradiction between what they claim is the logical view of reality and the emotional response to that view is quite telling. Ultimately, the materialist borrows hope from the spiritualist because the materialist has a spiritual being that yearns for recognition.
Yes, hope is another biological urge, in the same vein as the dog's urge to procreate and that is the same urge as the feeling of "spiritual being yearning for recognition". Even the last is just biological urge. Saying that it all means nothing is of course nonsense, as it means something to me. I might be materialistic and deterministic "machine", but that does not negate my autonomy. I feel pain, I feel joy, I exist, those are scientific facts. If you deny that, then you are going in the direction of solipsism or some other nonsense and the discussion is pointless. Determinism and finite-ness mean nothing in regards of me existing and feeling and thinking. I also have free will unless I am being forced, that is because I am autonomous. Of course the free will that you imagine and that you cannot even define does not exist. Murder is wrong as such is nature of this group of beings to consider it wrong. Murderer has responsibility for the act since he did the act being autonomous (see all reasonable justice systems having non-coercion "loopholes") - exact defintion of responsibility. The fact that he could not not-murder in that set of circumstances has no bearing on responsibility as it was still him who did that as an autonomous being. It has bearing however on my view as to how he should be treated. And of course that things are not inevitable as we might be predominantly deterministic, but universe is not. The love I hold is real, since I, as all animals, can love. The fact that love is just bodily function changes nothing. My life has meaning as meaning is subjective and so is purpose (in this context). Your whole paragraph is just a bunch of arguing against facts and full of nonsensical conclusions.
I do not search for "hope". I have my hopes. I hope that I will not die before I am old. That is not some mystical hope, that is just biological emotion. I hope I will have time to do things I like, again because that is how our bodies work. I do not hold absolutely any hope about some transcendental purpose of my life or my being. I know too much to hold such delusions. The only thing I am sad about is that I will be no more sooner than I would like, but not about lack of meaning or lack of purpose. But that is beside the point. Even if I did so, that would just be effect of instincts that nature gave me, not some evidence of spiritual being. Basically what you are saying is that emotions are more valid form of knowledge than reason ? That all those instincts that lead us to do stupid shit should be listened to, because they are the sign of spiritual being.
|
On July 02 2013 01:35 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 01:25 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:14 DoubleReed wrote:Anyone who's reading and talking about the copying thing should see The Prestige btw. Awesome movie. On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. There's plenty of hope in materialism. There's more hope actually. It means we can learn about EVERYTHING and not just half the world. Dualism implies that learning how things work is hopeless. Is this necessarily true ? I think a lot of dualists would say that that you can learn about the world of ideals by pure reason. I don't even know what that means.
That we can learn about the non-material world, by using just reason, without empirical component. Like math for example, for platonists. I am not dualist, but I do not think they consider the non-material world unknowable.
|
On July 02 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 01:35 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 01:25 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:14 DoubleReed wrote:Anyone who's reading and talking about the copying thing should see The Prestige btw. Awesome movie. On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. There's plenty of hope in materialism. There's more hope actually. It means we can learn about EVERYTHING and not just half the world. Dualism implies that learning how things work is hopeless. Is this necessarily true ? I think a lot of dualists would say that that you can learn about the world of ideals by pure reason. I don't even know what that means. That we can learn about the non-material world, by using just reason, without empirical component. Like math for example, for platonists. I am not dualist, but I do not think they consider the non-material world unknowable.
Not the words. I know what the words mean. I mean practically speaking. How would I go about discovering things?
Because usually people just make shit up and make unfalsifiable claims...
|
On July 02 2013 02:13 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 01:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:15 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. That is false. Many materialists have hope(s). Unless you mean specifically hope for life after death. But that is not prevented by materialism, although most people think it is. No I mean that hope itself is just another biological urge, completely uncontrollable in any real sense. Your "hopes" are as meaningful as the dog's urge to procreate or the pigeon's urge to eat. You can say that you have hopes but "you" (in the sense that it is used) don't exist. You are just a bundle of inevitable sensations that at some point will cease to exist and have had no more effect upon the world than any other physical occurrence, probably much less than most. Your insignificance is entirely complete down to the fact that there is no you at all. It's a trick of the light, only there is no trick because a trick requires an illusion, an illusion requires a viewer, and we have no true viewer. We have machines that react to stimuli. Self-improvement is not a choice, nor is it anything more than a nonsensical string of words. Is it better for the machine to do A than it is to do B? Who says? The machine itself? It was biologically designed to say so. There is no objectively better, and no objectively worse. The murderer has committed no outrageous act by slaying the fellow machine, he has just performed a biologically inevitable action that resulted in other biologically inevitable actions. Nothing can be done to change the inevitable, and the machines simply experience the inevitable occurring, if it could even be called experience as the machines themselves do not exist except as a series of outputs. The love you hold is not love and you do not hold it. It is a biological inevitability wrapped within a biological inevitability. Entirely without meaning or purpose. Personally, I find the utter rejection of these truths to be the ultimate evidence against the philosophical position that implies them. The fact that the materialist searches (in vain, according to his/her own beliefs) for "hope" is proof enough for me that at the deepest level, they do not wish for it to be true. The contradiction between what they claim is the logical view of reality and the emotional response to that view is quite telling. Ultimately, the materialist borrows hope from the spiritualist because the materialist has a spiritual being that yearns for recognition. Saying that it all means nothing is of course nonsense, as it means something to me. I might be materialistic and deterministic "machine", but that does not negate my autonomy.
By definition, it does...
I also have free will unless I am being forced, that is because I am autonomous.
You just said you have free-will because you have free-will.
I do not search for "hope". I have my hopes. I hope that I will not die before I am old. That is not some mystical hope, that is just biological emotion. Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word.
Basically what you are saying is that emotions are more valid form of knowledge than reason ? That all those instincts that lead us to do stupid shit should be listened to, because they are the sign of spiritual being. I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid.
|
On July 02 2013 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Yeah, you can say that the brain is just chemistry and electricity (I'm pretty sure I even said so in my first post), but that belittles the parts we get from this specific process... the individualism, the self-awareness, the experiences. What do you mean " just chemistry and electricity"? If chemistry and electricity are capable of generating something that immensely awesome and complex, then don't you think chemistry and electricity is incredible? What is this "just"? Saying something is physical is saying that it is as real as real can be. It doesn't diminish your experiences. It only should raise up your view of the physical. If love is chemical and electric, does that make love less real? No, it makes love more real. And makes reality more lovely.
IMO it's like saying a work of art, like an amazing novel is "just words", and that a beautiful painting is "just paint". The parts are just that, parts. It's the amazing thing which emerges from them that is wonderful, the parts themselves are mundane.
|
On July 02 2013 02:22 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:35 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 01:25 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:14 DoubleReed wrote:Anyone who's reading and talking about the copying thing should see The Prestige btw. Awesome movie. On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. There's plenty of hope in materialism. There's more hope actually. It means we can learn about EVERYTHING and not just half the world. Dualism implies that learning how things work is hopeless. Is this necessarily true ? I think a lot of dualists would say that that you can learn about the world of ideals by pure reason. I don't even know what that means. That we can learn about the non-material world, by using just reason, without empirical component. Like math for example, for platonists. I am not dualist, but I do not think they consider the non-material world unknowable. Not the words. I know what the words mean. I mean practically speaking. How would I go about discovering things? Because usually people just make shit up and make unfalsifiable claims...
Pretty much. Make an unfalsifiable claim and slap reason on it and you've got a pretend-truth.
On July 02 2013 02:24 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:11 DoubleReed wrote:Yeah, you can say that the brain is just chemistry and electricity (I'm pretty sure I even said so in my first post), but that belittles the parts we get from this specific process... the individualism, the self-awareness, the experiences. What do you mean " just chemistry and electricity"? If chemistry and electricity are capable of generating something that immensely awesome and complex, then don't you think chemistry and electricity is incredible? What is this "just"? Saying something is physical is saying that it is as real as real can be. It doesn't diminish your experiences. It only should raise up your view of the physical. If love is chemical and electric, does that make love less real? No, it makes love more real. And makes reality more lovely. IMO it's like saying a work of art, like an amazing novel is "just words", and that a beautiful painting is "just paint". The parts are just that, parts. It's the amazing thing which emerges from them that is wonderful, the parts themselves are mundane.
The problem with that analogy is people will jump on it and say well "the painting required a painter" which is a dubious comparison to make for our existence 
|
On July 02 2013 02:22 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:35 DoubleReed wrote:On July 02 2013 01:25 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:14 DoubleReed wrote:Anyone who's reading and talking about the copying thing should see The Prestige btw. Awesome movie. On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. There's plenty of hope in materialism. There's more hope actually. It means we can learn about EVERYTHING and not just half the world. Dualism implies that learning how things work is hopeless. Is this necessarily true ? I think a lot of dualists would say that that you can learn about the world of ideals by pure reason. I don't even know what that means. That we can learn about the non-material world, by using just reason, without empirical component. Like math for example, for platonists. I am not dualist, but I do not think they consider the non-material world unknowable. Not the words. I know what the words mean. I mean practically speaking. How would I go about discovering things? Because usually people just make shit up and make unfalsifiable claims...
Oh, that I cannot answer you too well as I have the same feeling as you The problem is of course with the "unfalsifiable". Since scientific method does not apply I know of no way to objectively determine anything.
But since they claim for example that mathematical concepts exist in this dual world, you can find out about their properties by "doing math". Basically by pure deduction. Problem are the axioms, but they will probably just say that we have some innate access to that realm and we can determine the axioms through that connection.
|
On July 02 2013 02:24 Djzapz wrote:The problem with that analogy is people will jump on it and say well "the painting required a painter" which is a dubious comparison to make for our existence
That's a very good point... I guess a better comparison would be the beauty of nature, like a rainbow.
|
On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:13 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:15 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. That is false. Many materialists have hope(s). Unless you mean specifically hope for life after death. But that is not prevented by materialism, although most people think it is. No I mean that hope itself is just another biological urge, completely uncontrollable in any real sense. Your "hopes" are as meaningful as the dog's urge to procreate or the pigeon's urge to eat. You can say that you have hopes but "you" (in the sense that it is used) don't exist. You are just a bundle of inevitable sensations that at some point will cease to exist and have had no more effect upon the world than any other physical occurrence, probably much less than most. Your insignificance is entirely complete down to the fact that there is no you at all. It's a trick of the light, only there is no trick because a trick requires an illusion, an illusion requires a viewer, and we have no true viewer. We have machines that react to stimuli. Self-improvement is not a choice, nor is it anything more than a nonsensical string of words. Is it better for the machine to do A than it is to do B? Who says? The machine itself? It was biologically designed to say so. There is no objectively better, and no objectively worse. The murderer has committed no outrageous act by slaying the fellow machine, he has just performed a biologically inevitable action that resulted in other biologically inevitable actions. Nothing can be done to change the inevitable, and the machines simply experience the inevitable occurring, if it could even be called experience as the machines themselves do not exist except as a series of outputs. The love you hold is not love and you do not hold it. It is a biological inevitability wrapped within a biological inevitability. Entirely without meaning or purpose. Personally, I find the utter rejection of these truths to be the ultimate evidence against the philosophical position that implies them. The fact that the materialist searches (in vain, according to his/her own beliefs) for "hope" is proof enough for me that at the deepest level, they do not wish for it to be true. The contradiction between what they claim is the logical view of reality and the emotional response to that view is quite telling. Ultimately, the materialist borrows hope from the spiritualist because the materialist has a spiritual being that yearns for recognition. Saying that it all means nothing is of course nonsense, as it means something to me. I might be materialistic and deterministic "machine", but that does not negate my autonomy. By definition, it does... Show nested quote +I also have free will unless I am being forced, that is because I am autonomous. You just said you have free-will because you have free-will. Show nested quote +I do not search for "hope". I have my hopes. I hope that I will not die before I am old. That is not some mystical hope, that is just biological emotion. Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word. Show nested quote +Basically what you are saying is that emotions are more valid form of knowledge than reason ? That all those instincts that lead us to do stupid shit should be listened to, because they are the sign of spiritual being. I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid.
Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ?
Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions.
|
On July 02 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:13 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:15 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. That is false. Many materialists have hope(s). Unless you mean specifically hope for life after death. But that is not prevented by materialism, although most people think it is. No I mean that hope itself is just another biological urge, completely uncontrollable in any real sense. Your "hopes" are as meaningful as the dog's urge to procreate or the pigeon's urge to eat. You can say that you have hopes but "you" (in the sense that it is used) don't exist. You are just a bundle of inevitable sensations that at some point will cease to exist and have had no more effect upon the world than any other physical occurrence, probably much less than most. Your insignificance is entirely complete down to the fact that there is no you at all. It's a trick of the light, only there is no trick because a trick requires an illusion, an illusion requires a viewer, and we have no true viewer. We have machines that react to stimuli. Self-improvement is not a choice, nor is it anything more than a nonsensical string of words. Is it better for the machine to do A than it is to do B? Who says? The machine itself? It was biologically designed to say so. There is no objectively better, and no objectively worse. The murderer has committed no outrageous act by slaying the fellow machine, he has just performed a biologically inevitable action that resulted in other biologically inevitable actions. Nothing can be done to change the inevitable, and the machines simply experience the inevitable occurring, if it could even be called experience as the machines themselves do not exist except as a series of outputs. The love you hold is not love and you do not hold it. It is a biological inevitability wrapped within a biological inevitability. Entirely without meaning or purpose. Personally, I find the utter rejection of these truths to be the ultimate evidence against the philosophical position that implies them. The fact that the materialist searches (in vain, according to his/her own beliefs) for "hope" is proof enough for me that at the deepest level, they do not wish for it to be true. The contradiction between what they claim is the logical view of reality and the emotional response to that view is quite telling. Ultimately, the materialist borrows hope from the spiritualist because the materialist has a spiritual being that yearns for recognition. Saying that it all means nothing is of course nonsense, as it means something to me. I might be materialistic and deterministic "machine", but that does not negate my autonomy. By definition, it does... I also have free will unless I am being forced, that is because I am autonomous. You just said you have free-will because you have free-will. I do not search for "hope". I have my hopes. I hope that I will not die before I am old. That is not some mystical hope, that is just biological emotion. Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word. Basically what you are saying is that emotions are more valid form of knowledge than reason ? That all those instincts that lead us to do stupid shit should be listened to, because they are the sign of spiritual being. I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid. Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ? Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions.
Religion could be delusion... sure. So what? There is no evidence to say that it is and some evidence to say that it isn't (though let's not get into that discussion).
The whole point of determinism is that nothing whatsoever can be "achieved" about triggers or anything at all. What will occur will occur regardless of any non-existent "action" being taken by "actors" that aren't there. Efforts to avoid/embrace a specific turn of events are themselves predetermined, as is their eventual (and inevitable) efficacy.
|
edit: Deleted for the greater good.
|
On July 02 2013 02:37 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:13 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:15 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. That is false. Many materialists have hope(s). Unless you mean specifically hope for life after death. But that is not prevented by materialism, although most people think it is. No I mean that hope itself is just another biological urge, completely uncontrollable in any real sense. Your "hopes" are as meaningful as the dog's urge to procreate or the pigeon's urge to eat. You can say that you have hopes but "you" (in the sense that it is used) don't exist. You are just a bundle of inevitable sensations that at some point will cease to exist and have had no more effect upon the world than any other physical occurrence, probably much less than most. Your insignificance is entirely complete down to the fact that there is no you at all. It's a trick of the light, only there is no trick because a trick requires an illusion, an illusion requires a viewer, and we have no true viewer. We have machines that react to stimuli. Self-improvement is not a choice, nor is it anything more than a nonsensical string of words. Is it better for the machine to do A than it is to do B? Who says? The machine itself? It was biologically designed to say so. There is no objectively better, and no objectively worse. The murderer has committed no outrageous act by slaying the fellow machine, he has just performed a biologically inevitable action that resulted in other biologically inevitable actions. Nothing can be done to change the inevitable, and the machines simply experience the inevitable occurring, if it could even be called experience as the machines themselves do not exist except as a series of outputs. The love you hold is not love and you do not hold it. It is a biological inevitability wrapped within a biological inevitability. Entirely without meaning or purpose. Personally, I find the utter rejection of these truths to be the ultimate evidence against the philosophical position that implies them. The fact that the materialist searches (in vain, according to his/her own beliefs) for "hope" is proof enough for me that at the deepest level, they do not wish for it to be true. The contradiction between what they claim is the logical view of reality and the emotional response to that view is quite telling. Ultimately, the materialist borrows hope from the spiritualist because the materialist has a spiritual being that yearns for recognition. Saying that it all means nothing is of course nonsense, as it means something to me. I might be materialistic and deterministic "machine", but that does not negate my autonomy. By definition, it does... I also have free will unless I am being forced, that is because I am autonomous. You just said you have free-will because you have free-will. I do not search for "hope". I have my hopes. I hope that I will not die before I am old. That is not some mystical hope, that is just biological emotion. Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word. Basically what you are saying is that emotions are more valid form of knowledge than reason ? That all those instincts that lead us to do stupid shit should be listened to, because they are the sign of spiritual being. I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid. Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ? Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions. Religion could be delusion... sure. So what? There is no evidence to say that it is and some evidence to say that it isn't (though let's not get into that discussion). Oh wow selective bias to the limit... I know you said let's not get into that but wow, NO evidence that religion could be delusion? Lots of abandoned Gods to go around then... I mean I'd probably just let it slip if you said there's no evidence either way because at its core it's unfalsifiable but come on, have some semblance of honesty. Wiser religious people don't meddle with the word "evidence" to further their beliefs.
Was he speaking about specific religions, or the concept of religion as a whole? If he was talking about a specific religion or religions, than yes, of course some can be shown to be delusions or made-up. If he was talking about religion as a whole being a delusion... than the statement stands: as of yet, there is no evidence (physical or otherwise) that can be said to point to the conclusion that religion as a concept is a delusion (that all religions are necessarily delusional).
I've had this discussion way too many times to think it will bring any real conclusion, but suffice it to say that eyewitness testimony is valid evidence (even if unconvincing).
|
No Djzapz!! Don't take the bait! You've doomed us all!!!
|
On July 02 2013 02:37 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:32 Cynry wrote:On July 02 2013 02:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 02:13 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 02 2013 01:15 mcc wrote:On July 02 2013 01:10 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 01 2013 22:16 mcc wrote:On July 01 2013 20:29 Tuczniak wrote:I wish there were some kind of soul independent on brain, but I don't think there is one Just electric impulses and chemistry... It makes me sad. Why? And I direct it to all people who said this. Because there is no hope in materialism. People want to hope. That is false. Many materialists have hope(s). Unless you mean specifically hope for life after death. But that is not prevented by materialism, although most people think it is. No I mean that hope itself is just another biological urge, completely uncontrollable in any real sense. Your "hopes" are as meaningful as the dog's urge to procreate or the pigeon's urge to eat. You can say that you have hopes but "you" (in the sense that it is used) don't exist. You are just a bundle of inevitable sensations that at some point will cease to exist and have had no more effect upon the world than any other physical occurrence, probably much less than most. Your insignificance is entirely complete down to the fact that there is no you at all. It's a trick of the light, only there is no trick because a trick requires an illusion, an illusion requires a viewer, and we have no true viewer. We have machines that react to stimuli. Self-improvement is not a choice, nor is it anything more than a nonsensical string of words. Is it better for the machine to do A than it is to do B? Who says? The machine itself? It was biologically designed to say so. There is no objectively better, and no objectively worse. The murderer has committed no outrageous act by slaying the fellow machine, he has just performed a biologically inevitable action that resulted in other biologically inevitable actions. Nothing can be done to change the inevitable, and the machines simply experience the inevitable occurring, if it could even be called experience as the machines themselves do not exist except as a series of outputs. The love you hold is not love and you do not hold it. It is a biological inevitability wrapped within a biological inevitability. Entirely without meaning or purpose. Personally, I find the utter rejection of these truths to be the ultimate evidence against the philosophical position that implies them. The fact that the materialist searches (in vain, according to his/her own beliefs) for "hope" is proof enough for me that at the deepest level, they do not wish for it to be true. The contradiction between what they claim is the logical view of reality and the emotional response to that view is quite telling. Ultimately, the materialist borrows hope from the spiritualist because the materialist has a spiritual being that yearns for recognition. Saying that it all means nothing is of course nonsense, as it means something to me. I might be materialistic and deterministic "machine", but that does not negate my autonomy. By definition, it does... I also have free will unless I am being forced, that is because I am autonomous. You just said you have free-will because you have free-will. I do not search for "hope". I have my hopes. I hope that I will not die before I am old. That is not some mystical hope, that is just biological emotion. Precisely. Biological emotion that you have absolutely no control over and are entirely incapable of changing. Most people would not call the instinctual urge to run away from a hopeless situation "hope". The hope you have is not something that is meaningful in any true sense of the word. Basically what you are saying is that emotions are more valid form of knowledge than reason ? That all those instincts that lead us to do stupid shit should be listened to, because they are the sign of spiritual being. I'm saying that the fact that your position is not only biologically untenable, but also carries with it the necessity of "deluding yourself" to be happy is a good indication that the position itself is invalid. Now please explain how religion is not just another delusion ? Also, one may not control the nature of emotions (anger is anger etc), but a lot can be achieved about what trigger said emotions. Religion could be delusion... sure. So what? There is no evidence to say that it is and some evidence to say that it isn't (though let's not get into that discussion). Oh wow selective bias to the limit... I know you said let's not get into that but wow, NO evidence that religion could be delusion? Lots of abandoned Gods to go around then... I mean I'd probably just let it slip if you said there's no evidence either way because at its core it's unfalsifiable but come on.
His position is basically the Buddhist one, which is pretty incompatible with most types of religion.
|
On July 02 2013 02:39 DoubleReed wrote:
No Djzapz!! Don't take the bait! You've doomed us all!!!
Sincerest apologies. I said nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
