Metaphysics LOL?

[MrRubix]

In this thread, we shall talk about life, the universe, and everything.

I'll continue my post shortly from where it left off in the IQ thread for the sake of keeping on topic.

[leonid]

42

[leonid]

Problem solved

[Reach]

Glad to get that out of the other thread.

Like I said (again), those are not the only reasons why I believe in God.
Why can't this "irreducibly complex portion of reality" contain intelligence?

Why WOULD it contain intelligence, when intelligence is organized complexity? How much intelligence do you see in the universe compared to how much there is in the universe? Not much. For billions and billions of years the universe was without intelligence. It evolved through a laborious process of increasing complexity in isolated areas over time. Why, then, would intelligence exist in an irreducibly complex system?

Unless of course you mean something else by intelligence, in which case this is just a semantic debate.

[mhss1992]

This is a very, very, very, very simple way of expressing part of my theory about something called "observer".

1- Close your eyes. Pay attention only to the blackness in front of you. It's the 2D space for images. Try to imagine this space disappearing.
What happens when you die? Will you live in eternal blackness? How can there be blackness without a space for images?
2- If several babies are born at the same time, why is your first person perspective coming from only one of them? What, materially speaking, defines that? If I create an identical clone of you after you die and copy all your memories into it, will your mind remain dead or will you live in the clone's body? Every year, 98% of your body's atoms are exchanged, so where's the "first person"?

I hope this makes sense to someone.

By the way: Am I the only deist in this community?

[Reach]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

This is a very, very, very, very simple way of expressing part of my theory about something called "observer".

1- Close your eyes. Pay attention only to the blackness in front of you. It's the 2D space for images. Try to imagine this space disappearing.
What happens when you die? Will you live in eternal blackness? How can there be blackness without a space for images?
2- If several identical babies are born at the same time, why is your first person perspective coming from only one of them? What, materially speaking, defines that? If I create an identical clone of you after you die and copy all your memories into it, will your mind remain dead or will you live in the clone's body? Every year, 98% of your body's atoms are exchanged, so where's the "first person"?

I hope this makes sense to someone.

This is all fine and dandy but doesn't address any of the points I just made.

I'll address yours anyway.

1. What happens when you die? Well, what happens when an anesthesiologist puts you to sleep? Ditto. You don't 'live in eternal blackness' because you're not living at all.

With respect to imagining no space at all, obviously you can't do that. There is no such thing as 'no space' because if it was something, it wouldn't be no space. Actually, this is a part of my argument as to why something exists rather than nothing.

2-Because your eyes are attached to you and only you, which is attached to your brain and only your brain? Materially speaking, your mental representation of reality derives itself from what is happening inside of your brain.

If you copied me and *I* died, I would obviously remain dead. My copy would live on.

By the way: Am I the only deist in this community?

No.

How can you say that something is not plausible because it has no physical proof? You are almost asuming that only the physical things we see exist. If you don't know it, you can't say that it's not plausible. There are thousands of reports of kids who remember detailed events about dead people, and many other things.

Because if it were plausible you'd be able to find evidence to support why it would be plausible.

Think of playing a game of Texas Holdem. How do you know it's highly plausible that you'll win if you have an Ace Ace pair? Because you have evidence. Nobody believes things are plausible without evidence or reason for them being plausible...except in the case of the metaphysical it seems :P

If I don't know it, I can't say it's not *POSSIBLE*, but plausible? No. Look at the definition of plausible: "apparently reasonable and valid, and truthful" - obviously for it to be plausible I would need some reason to believe it first.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Reach

1. What happens when you die? Well, what happens when an anesthesiologist puts you to sleep? Ditto. You don't 'live in eternal blackness' because you're not living at all.

With respect to imagining no space at all, obviously you can't do that. There is no such thing as 'no space' because if it was something, it wouldn't be no space. Actually, this is a part of my argument as to why something exists rather than nothing.

2-Because your eyes are attached to you and only you, which is attached to your brain and only your brain? Materially speaking, your mental representation of reality derives itself from what is happening inside of your brain.

If you copied me and *I* died, I would obviously remain dead. My copy would live on.

1- If there's still a space, what is this space? Didn't the material body die? how can there be a space?

2- You really didn't get it. Why is your brain yours? I mean, before you were born, what would define that the first person that is currently feeling this would be at Reach's brain and not in some girl's brain in India? I MEAN, Reach would still be reading this, but it would be like a "third person" to you, why not?

So, what is *You*, considering it's a identical copy? What about the 98% atoms thing?

[jchinzilla]

oh so dying is just like being put to sleep by an anesthesiologist, thanks for the info reach

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

This is a very, very, very, very simple way of expressing part of my theory about something called "observer".

1- Close your eyes. Pay attention only to the blackness in front of you. It's the 2D space for images. Try to imagine this space disappearing.
What happens when you die? Will you live in eternal blackness? How can there be blackness without a space for images?
2- If several babies are born at the same time, why is your first person perspective coming from only one of them? What, materially speaking, defines that? If I create an identical clone of you after you die and copy all your memories into it, will your mind remain dead or will you live in the clone's body? Every year, 98% of your body's atoms are exchanged, so where's the "first person"?

I hope this makes sense to someone.

By the way: Am I the only deist in this community?

The blackness in my eyes is the backs of my eyelids, so I am not quite sure what you're after there. But you should be able to answer that for yourself. What was your life like before you were born? I think death is a lot like that. You don't even "sense" a blackness. There's nothing. Without an active brain, you are not interpreting anything. It's a weird concept because, like you said, you are alive and you know you exist, and therefore the notion of not existing or experiencing "an absence of blackness" doesn't make much sense.

It's similar to the notion that you can't see out of your arm. Why can't you? You don't have eyeballs there. There's no sense there for sight. When you die, there's no sense for hearing, touch, smell, sight, taste, or thought. Again, think back to what it was like before you were born. You don't remember anything about it for a reason :P You didn't exist. The components that made up your body were in all sorts of places and were eventually synthesized through reproductive processes, but this also includes your brain. Material components by themselves are not sentient and they do not think, but together they can synthesize a biological "machine" that is able to. When that machine fails, all functions cease.

As for your baby question, I bring up my computer example again. Computer A is Computer A because it's composed that way. If I create a human, it's not like it's dead unless a "soul" or "essence" suddenly occupies it. It's alive and human because it's made up of biological components that allow for life to function. You gain the "perspective" that you do simply because the parts that compose you have created that perspective.

"But why did I not get born as, say, Bill Clinton? Why am I me?"

The parts that made Bill Clinton came together to make Bill Clinton. The parts that came together to make you made you.

[MrRubix]

And yes, about your clone example, I echo Reach on that one. If I died, *I* would be gone. My perspective would cease. My clone would have its own perspective, but it would simply have my memories and mind and physical makeup. It'd be like me buying another identical computer and transferring over the data of my hard drive. It's the same computer in every way, shape, and form, but it's not really the original computer.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by jchinzilla

oh so dying is just like being put to sleep by an anesthesiologist, thanks for the info reach

Well, what you see and perceive is a function of what's happening in your brain. This is really non disputable in the neuroscience community - maybe in a Church, but I'm talking science here, not mysticism.

When you die, your brain isn't working any more. So what happens is analogous of being put to sleep in that it's the absence of any cognition. If you'd like to argue otherwise, please, by all means do so, but I don't think you can distinguish between being put to sleep and dying, since both are the absence of cognitive awareness - the only difference is the anesthesiologist eventually wakes you up :P

1- If there's still a space, what is this space? Didn't the material body die? how can there be a space?

2- You really didn't get it. Why is your brain yours? I mean, before you were born, what would define that the first person that is currently feeling this would be at Reach's brain and not in some girl's brain in India? I MEAN, Reach would still be reading this, but it would be like a "third person" to you, why not?

So, what is *You*, considering it's a identical copy? What about the 98% atoms thing?

1-There wouldn't be a space when you're dead, because you lack any cognitive awareness. I was talking about how you couldn't imagine the absence of space while ALIVE.

2- My brain is mine because it's in my physical body. What you're saying doesn't make sense. Clarify.

*I* would be the brain located in my current physical body, which is located in the exact position I'm currently typing this message from.

Mr. Rubix also said a lot of things I agree with. This, in particular -> "It'd be like me buying another identical computer and transferring over the data of my hard drive. It's the same computer in every way, shape, and form, but it's not really the original computer."

As for the 98% atoms thing, why don't you give me a scientific reference for that so I can at least validate the claim first.

[MrRubix]

I think what he is asking is why are you YOU and why aren't you someone else?

Again, I think it's simply because of our components. If you create a working brain in a working human, someone's got to be at the helm, right? Thing is, that "someone" is actually the brain. We ARE what we're made of. It doesn't make sense to say "why weren't you born as someone in India" because that person in India was formed from specific parts through specific processes independent of your parts and processes. You are making the assumption that our "perspective" is some kind of external entity looking out through a physical shell, but really, we ARE that physical shell, and that physical shell is what CREATES our perspective through the brain.

Why is a Toshiba laptop a Toshiba? Because, well, it's made by Toshiba -- it wasn't made by Dell.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I think what he is asking is why are you YOU and why aren't you someone else?

I figured he was arguing something else, because the answer to this should be plainly obvious. I'm me and not anyone else because if I was someone else I wouldn't be me. It's a self evident tautology.

Or alternatively, you can give an example as you just did. Thank you :P

[MrRubix]

While that is true, I can see why one would ask that question if they don't quite think of human perspective as something created entirely by the brain.

[mhss1992]

Ok, let's talk about the blackness, because the 2nd part is just too hard for me to express, especially considering English is not my native language. But I do mean something.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

The blackness in my eyes is the backs of my eyelids, so I am not quite sure what you're after there. But you should be able to answer that for yourself. What was your life like before you were born? I think death is a lot like that. You don't even "sense" a blackness. There's nothing. Without an active brain, you are not interpreting anything. It's a weird concept because, like you said, you are alive and you know you exist, and therefore the notion of not existing or experiencing "an absence of blackness" doesn't make much sense.

I am referring to the space. There is a 2d space where image occurs, and that is why we can call the absence of images "blackness", because the space still exists.

Think about it: can a space disappear or appear? When did it appear? In what moment was your mind a "no space" and then it suddenly became a "space"?
After you die, just what happens to the space? "Nothing" doesn't answer anything. Try to "erase" a space. It's impossible. There's always something behind it, isn't there?

[ieatyourlvllol]

Just a bit of input on some stuff from the IQ thread

Originally Posted by mhss1992

It's not just about the complexity of everything, it's something more like: I have existed in this world for a few years. I don't know everything. The reality that I know is inside my mind, I really don't know if there's anything else beyond my mind, I don't even know if you exist. Now, this is solipsistic and probably has nothing to do with the subject, but...
If you stop for a while and try to see the world as something new, strange, ignoring every concept you have about it, it really makes you wonder how existence is possible.

Methinks you're starting to edge into the area between metaphysics and epistemology.

Originally Posted by Reach

So, it exists by virtue of the fact that less than that couldn't exist. I'm not sure I like your use of 'source of existence', since I wouldn't argue existence has any 'sources' per say but exists by virtue of something being there, and I don't see why this would be logically inconsistent.

I think respectively replacing "(source of) existence" and "object" with "cause" and "effect" still conveys the general message in the given context.

Originally Posted by Reach

Oh come on, it ended long ago with the experiments in neuroscience demonstrating the outcome of our thoughts/actions is determined prior to our will to act/think. It's determinism, baby.

It seems that way, at least from a physical (and psychological) standpoint. However, philosophy has yet to resolve the perceptual dimension of the issue, which contains the most relevance for humankind. At this point, though, we're venturing into different territory (human perception of personal conscious states w/ the additional component of time), and semantics starts playing a role in how we wish to define the stances we might espouse.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

If I create an identical clone of you after you die and copy all your memories into it, will your mind remain dead or will you live in the clone's body?

Theoretically, a clone could sustain a person's unique existence if and only if it inhabited the exact space and time from which the original person left off. In that case, however, it would not be a clone (by common definition) at all, but rather, an extension of your existence across the dimension of time (i.e. YOU). In other words, you constantly exist as a present self that is a "clone" of your past self (reflecting, of course, the advent of change within time). That's where the idea of "identity via bodily continuity" is derived from.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Every year, 98% of your body's atoms are exchanged, so where's the "first person"?

A common answer to this question is to imagine a large wooden boat out at sea. Every once in a while, some planks fall off and are subsequently replaced. At some point, all the planks will have been replaced. Is the boat still the same? Maybe not physically, but we still call it the same boat due to the continuity explained above.

[Flaming_Dingleberry]

Oh Jesus this is a thread of madness. To contribute what little I'm willing to write, I share the perspectives of Reach and Rubix. Thinking of death as life with your eyes closed is... well it sounds semi-retarded to me :/ Think of how you feel when unconscious, asleep, how you felt before you were born; you don't and you didn't. This thread reminds me of a question I came up with long ago, "Were you dead before you were born?" If someone has an opinion on that, do tell Everything Rubix just said in reply to mhss1992 explains everything too well, I'm not going any further with it. If that's not enough explanation, nothing is. I believe in "a" God (not from any specific religion). I believe there is some high power, but I'm not saying I'm right. I can't think of one reason for me to try explaining why there is a God without me having any evidence. I "believe" in God. if you want to know why "I believe" in God, you can ask why, but don't ask my why there is a God, I don't know if there is. Also, being born as one person and not another is an inevitable process. Why was I born as "Wes" instead of "Sally"? If I were born as "Sally" I would ask the same thing. I'm thinking you believe in essences and souls and whatnot, so I'll even answer it in THAT perspective. Since we can only be born as one person, maybe I WAS born as "Wes" instead of "Sally", I just don't know it.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Ok, let's talk about the blackness, because the 2nd part is just too hard for me to express, especially considering English is not my native language. But I do mean something.



I am referring to the space. There is a 2d space where image occurs, and that is why we can call the absence of images "blackness", because the space still exists.

Think about it: can a space disappear or appear? When did it appear? In what moment was your mind a "no space" and then it suddenly became a "space"?
After you die, just what happens to the space? "Nothing" doesn't answer anything. Try to "erase" a space. It's impossible. There's always something behind it, isn't there?

I understand what you're trying to express with the 2nd part -- please read above and let me know what you think.

As for space disappearing, I do not understand what you mean there. It seems like you've answered it yourself. You're trying to make the assumption that you can sense an absence of sense, which isn't possible. Again, if you want to know what "nothing" is like, think back to before you were born. That is what nonexistence and non-functioning is like, and we probably go right back to that when we no longer function again, in my opinion.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Flaming_Dingleberry

Thinking of death as life with your eyes closed is... well it sounds semi-retarded to me :/

I'm really not saying that death is life with closed eyes, I was referring to the space where images occur.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I understand what you're trying to express with the 2nd part -- please read above and let me know what you think.

As for space disappearing, I do not understand what you mean there. It seems like you've answered it yourself. You're trying to make the assumption that you can sense an absence of sense, which isn't possible. Again, if you want to know what "nothing" is like, think back to before you were born. That is what nonexistence and non-functioning is like, and we probably go right back to that when we no longer function again, in my opinion.

Ok, just forget about life and death for a second.
Can a space disappear or appear? There is a paper on a table, if I destroy the paper, there will still be the space where the paper was.
If someone destroys your eyes and the part of your brain that's responsible for vision, will there still be a space for blackness or there will be nothing? If something appeared for you, perceptions, aren't there spaces for these things?

Sorry if I sound repetitive or retarded, a similar thing happened in a Philosophy forum not too long ago, it's frustrating, but I really want people to understand my thoughts.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I think what he is asking is why are you YOU and why aren't you someone else?

Again, I think it's simply because of our components. If you create a working brain in a working human, someone's got to be at the helm, right? Thing is, that "someone" is actually the brain. We ARE what we're made of. It doesn't make sense to say "why weren't you born as someone in India" because that person in India was formed from specific parts through specific processes independent of your parts and processes. You are making the assumption that our "perspective" is some kind of external entity looking out through a physical shell, but really, we ARE that physical shell, and that physical shell is what CREATES our perspective through the brain.

Why is a Toshiba laptop a Toshiba? Because, well, it's made by Toshiba -- it wasn't made by Dell.

I know MrRubix is MrRubix. But what I mean is that MrRubix would still be MrRubix if he existed as a third person to the part of your mind that feels. If you made a brain surgery that, somehow, made you look at the world from the eyes of someone else, but with the exact same thoughts and everything else from the other person, both would still be the same people and no one would notice the difference, but the part that feels would be exchanged.

[Mulie]

You perceive blackness where there's an absence of light. The space that would normally be represented to your brain by the images you perceive is all still there. You just don't see it anymore. Putting forth abstract ideas won't accomplish anything for you, because it doesn't matter how complex you make them. They're still abstract ideas.

You're only confusing yourself, by convincing yourself that 'something' is there; that 'something' is missing, or outside the reality we perceive. Our brains do not create space when they perceive an image; they only sense the space. Like a bat using echolocation to sense and steer through the terrain around it.

Once again. Images 'occur' only because you sense them. There's no proof to alternative dimension where your perception occurs as something physical.