Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

That was not the question, at all. And your body was not reconstituted before the others were created, I didn't say that.

The problem is this: our atoms are swapped during our lifetime, therefore, it's not the individual atoms that define the person.

But, after your body was completely disintegrated, there's nothing else that connects you to those individual atoms. So, if I recreate your body several times, with the same composition and configuration, same thoughts and memories, will one of them actually be you?
Will you only be brought back if I recreate your body with the same individual atoms that formed your original body?

It's not just about bringing someone who feels like you and has your thoughts, it's about "you" coming back from the nothing and perceiving the world from one of those bodies. And it's not as simple as it seems.

Well, it is simple, actually. I feel like you're trying to complicate the matter by forcing this concept of the mind being something separate from the brain, when really the solution doesn't call for it.

I feel like maybe you misunderstood what I meant when I said "atoms don't matter." They DO matter to the extent that different atoms = different person in general, and we both agree with this. If you have something made from X1 atoms and something else made of X2 atoms -- even if both atoms are the same and they form the same structures/functions -- they are different things in different places. Just to clarify, of course -- I know we both agree with this.

This is different from the case of one function/structure that is made up of X1 atoms and swaps out for X2 atoms. Even if I killed a person made of X1 atoms and let it chill for many years such that all its atoms were replaced with X2, it'd come back as the same person. This is different from, say, killing that person made of X1 and then resurrecting a clone made of X2. The clone would be a completely different person even though, in the end, we're bringing back someone made of X2 atoms with the same form/structure as the original being made of X1 atoms. Again, there is a difference between discrete and continuous function, especially regarding different source material. I don't know how to really make it more clear. The answer is a fairly obvious one, and it makes sense. Everything is still explained/maintained, and, furthermore, there is still no need for a soul or some sort of external entity of existence separate from the mind or body.

[N.T.M.]

Honestly it just takes too much faith for me to embrace abiogenesis.

Random elements were placed together which somehow formed spheres serving as a cell's skeleton as a result of certain positive and negative charges emitted from atoms/molecules. In conjunction with the unlikelihood of this occurrence you also need certain essential organelles to be present, and all formed by chance. Now even if you employ the infinite monkey theorem, this is still too feeble of a theory to explain the intricacies of even the simplest cells. Expound further to see how all of life's diversity must be the product of that..... not even conceivable.

Now random mutations, natural selection, and gradual changes over time in a species is certainly accurate and technically constitutes evolution, but the theory is erroneous to the extent that everything stems from a single ancestry. Fossils exemplify what can equate to fairly significant changes over time, but to believe that a chicken is a descendant of the t rex really requires much more faith than I possess.

Not in anyway to support my argument (as nothing I'm about to say can be proved), I'd just like to prove my conviction by personal experience. Why I'm arguing so vehemently here is because I've witnessed tangible spiritual accounts before: where you quite unmistakably see an entity interacting with you. Don't construe this with some distortion I've found in a photograph or some strange light anomaly, but things as clear and real as another person in front of you. It's scary as ****, but certainly instills conviction.

Again, obviously I can't prove any of that, but I just wanted to explain where I'm coming from.

[MrRubix]

That post is riddled with inaccuracies to the point where I genuinely cannot tell if you're trolling or not.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Well, it is simple, actually. I feel like you're trying to complicate the matter by forcing this concept of the mind being something separate from the brain, when really the solution doesn't call for it.

I feel like you are just avoiding the problem. You've been doing that for several posts.

You did not answer this problem I mentioned.

There was another reply to you before that. It's simple. I'm not assuming anything before the thought experiment, I just asked you to choose an option.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

I feel like maybe you misunderstood what I meant when I said "atoms don't matter." They DO matter to the extent that different atoms = different person in general, and we both agree with this. If you have something made from X1 atoms and something else made of X2 atoms -- even if both atoms are the same and they form the same structures/functions -- they are different things in different places. Just to clarify, of course -- I know we both agree with this.

This is different from the case of one function/structure that is made up of X1 atoms and swaps out for X2 atoms. Even if I killed a person made of X1 atoms and let it chill for many years such that all its atoms were replaced with X2, it'd come back as the same person. This is different from, say, killing that person made of X1 and then resurrecting a clone made of X2. The clone would be a completely different person even though, in the end, we're bringing back someone made of X2 atoms with the same form/structure as the original being made of X1 atoms. Again, there is a difference between discrete and continuous function, especially regarding different source material. I don't know how to really make it more clear. The answer is a fairly obvious one, and it makes sense. Everything is still explained/maintained, and, furthermore, there is still no need for a soul or some sort of external entity of existence separate from the mind or body.

I already know everything about the continuous/discrete swap. I already agreed with you in this.

What am I writing that makes you want to say that again? I suggested a different problem. I said it several times: your atoms were disintegrated and SPREAD around the world, no longer forming any structure.

You did not answer that.

[MrRubix]

mhs, I have been addressing your points head on. If you do not understand, then clarify exactly what it is you do not understand.

As for your atom question, I did answer that too if you understood my previous post. Atoms matter only to the extent of separate entities. They do not matter if we're talking about a pre-established structure because the structure is what defines itself, not the specific atoms -- but of course, that structure needs to be there. This directly answers your question.

Again, this solution is an obvious one. You're really trying to complicate it to a point where it doesn't need to go. EVERYTHING can be explained on a physical level, even with any though experiment you bring up. You're trying way too hard to separate observer from the mind and body when it just is not necessary.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

That post is riddled with inaccuracies to the point where I genuinely cannot tell if you're trolling or not.

Been a while since I've reviewed abiogenesis. Lemme review it again and see what inaccuracies you're referring to.

*edit* Well I researched it a bit more and come across this:

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Interesting. Just consider that in lieu of my first paragraph.

[MrRubix]

Alright now I know you're trolling, lol. I'm referring to your misunderstanding of evolution, chance, and determinism.

To be fair though, I was confusing the term "abiogenesis" with "creatio ex nihilo" -- we do actually have a decent understanding of abiogenesis and not so much creatio ex nihilo. Amino acids can indeed be formed naturally.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Alright now I know you're trolling, lol. I'm referring to your misunderstanding of evolution, chance, and determinism.

Well then, enlighten me.

I've read a fair amount on evolution. I think I have a decent understanding, at least fundamentally. Correct me if I'm wrong: through random mutations some organisms have more favorable traits and therefore survive to procreate while others in the population with less favorable traits die (natural selection). This continues etc. etc. etc. producing all of life's diversity. Yes, that's the VERY succinct version, but accurate, right?

That's essentially what I said earlier.

[MrRubix]

What I mean is that your comments about chance/etc are wrong. It's not like the chicken evolved from the T-Rex, but rather there are many similarities between the two that suggest a common ancestor at some point in the past. This doesn't really require "too much faith" to understand.

As for the human form, to say it's all a result of "chance" is to be subjecting yourself to the mother of all biases. We are alive and able to observe things precisely BECAUSE conditions allowed for it. So to look at things and say, "Wow! How lucky!" is to be ignoring the fact that these conditions were necessary. Considering how many planets there are in our universe, there are many that can sustain life and so it is not unreasonable to consider how these environments can be conducive to the formation of certain amino acids or other organisms. In our case, we are complex beings that can be described sufficiently as being derived from simplicity -- evolution solves this problem.

In other words, don't look to chance, but rather causality and determinism. Cells have the properties that they do because of the properties of matter and the interacting forces -- the environment has to be conducive to life, since evolution is a concept that depends on it.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

What I mean is that your comments about chance/etc are wrong. It's not like the chicken evolved from the T-Rex, but rather there are many similarities between the two that suggest a common ancestor at some point in the past. This doesn't really require "too much faith" to understand.

As for the human form, to say it's all a result of "chance" is to be subjecting yourself to the mother of all biases. We are alive and able to observe things precisely BECAUSE conditions allowed for it. So to look at things and say, "Wow! How lucky!" is to be ignoring the fact that these conditions were necessary. Considering how many planets there are in our universe, there are many that can sustain life and so it is not unreasonable to consider how these environments can be conducive to the formation of certain amino acids or other organisms. In our case, we are complex beings that can be described sufficiently as being derived from simplicity -- evolution solves this problem.

In other words, don't look to chance, but rather causality and determinism. Cells have the properties that they do because of the properties of matter and the interacting forces -- the environment has to be conducive to life, since evolution is a concept that depends on it.

I could see how you're misconstruing my comment with a common misconception regarding evolution. It's the same "We didn't come from monkeys argument", but instead shared a common ancestry.

I'll concede to that ambiguity on my part, but that aside, the formation of amino acids proves nothing regarding abiogenesis' feasibility. It is, in fact, all chance. A very unlikely chance at that. This is an idea which people have grown numb to. This has happened many (many many many) times. Any predominant dogma is met with a great deal of bias despite many "scientific facts" later being disproven all throughout history.

Evolution only "solves" this problem because it serves as the best explanation by default. It's hardly compelling.

just saying d[-_-]b

[MrRubix]

You contradict yourself, dude. It's *extremely* compelling, and you're still misunderstanding what it means for something to be "chance."

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

You contradict yourself, dude. It's *extremely* compelling

Never said that. As I recall it was more like:

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

It's hardly compelling.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

You're still misunderstanding what it means for something to be "chance."

No, I understand. Certain formations are inherent in molecules, but those formations don't produce life. They may create amino acids, etc., but not a prokaryotic cell with all the necessary organelles for it to be considered living. Something even as seemingly facile as bacteria is incredibly intricate. And clearly if its creation is not attributable to inherencies like that, it MUST be chance (simple logic). Objectively you must at least recognize that all abiogenesis theories are implausible even if you choose to embrace it by default.

Again, just saying.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

mhs, I have been addressing your points head on. If you do not understand, then clarify exactly what it is you do not understand.

As for your atom question, I did answer that too if you understood my previous post. Atoms matter only to the extent of separate entities. They do not matter if we're talking about a pre-established structure because the structure is what defines itself, not the specific atoms -- but of course, that structure needs to be there. This directly answers your question.

Okay. So, considering this post: http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...&postcount=114

Since there's no structure, and the atoms don't matter without a structure, you do choose option 2: "You will still feel nothing, as if you were in the void"

Right?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Again, this solution is an obvious one. You're really trying to complicate it to a point where it doesn't need to go. EVERYTHING can be explained on a physical level, even with any though experiment you bring up. You're trying way too hard to separate observer from the mind and body when it just is not necessary.

Please, stop saying that the solution is obvious.
When something is obvious, I notice it.

I don't know what you think of me. I don't know if you think I'm stupid because I disagree with you (and I'd love to know).
But I DO know this: You see what you want to see. You try to convince yourself that everything is perfectly explained by what you believe now. There's no need to tell me the same, because I also see what I want to see. I try to find the paradoxes. They do seem paradoxal to me, and it's a very strong feeling, but I also try to see them that way.

No matter what I say, you will always believe the same thing. If I show you a physical, irrefutable proof of the afterlife, you will still find a reason not to believe it, even if it's just saying "this is bs". Isn't it true? Maybe you do think that you're impartial, but I sincerely don't think so.

I'm just trying to be neutral, for now. These discussions are endless, because people always see what they want to see. I've been in various discussions like this before, even against religious people, and they do not end.


I've been continuing this discussion for 2 reasons:

1. I obviously think I'm right, because I have several reasons and I do see inconsistencies in the physical postulations.

2. I didn't want YOU to tell me, a few months from now, that "you've been crushed on that debate. Your arguments were torn apart...", because it's just NOT true (and it's extremely irritating). Again, you will probably convince yourself that it is true, but you didn't really solve every problem I threw at you. I mean, I'm still insisting with the disintegrated brain issue, because I still don't think it's solved.

If you want to quit, then I won't insist any longer. But if you don't, just choose an option from that post 114, that's all I ask.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

And clearly if its creation is not attributable to inherencies like that, it MUST be chance (simple logic). Objectively you must at least recognize that all abiogenesis theories are implausible even if you choose to embrace it by default.

Again, just saying.

Alright, then you don't understand logic. It's not chance. It's determinism. It's not "implausible." It's "necessary." Read up on the concepts and try again before you bring up this creationist BS.

[MrRubix]

mhs, you can't say I "haven't solved all the problems" when I *have* answered every single thought experiment you've thrown at me. The solution *is* obvious, and the physical explanation *does* explain these things. The reason you may not find it obvious is because you're holding onto a concept that has already been shown to be worthy of non-acceptance. If you keep trying to mold that concept around everything, then yes, it will just confuse you. Approach it physically, and it all makes sense.

It's fine to continue questioning something until you are satisfied, but you need to make sure you understand the other arguments first.

Also, if you had actual proof of an afterlife, then I would obviously have to consider it. But, right now, all proof points against it. I'm not arguing corrosively against the concept of an afterlife/God because "I simply find it BS" -- but because there's absolutely no evidence for such things, but plenty of evidence to suggest other alternatives. If there were evidence of an afterlife, I would no longer find it BS. But what I do find BS is to base an entire faith off a "maybe" and hold it to be true. If someone wants to test a "maybe," there's a method for it. If someone still wants to have "hope" for something, then that's another thing. What's silly to me is to "know something to be true/to believe in something strongly" with no real truth behind it at all. That's BS to me.

Re: Your thought experiment, the clone will be entirely new. The one derived from the original atoms will be the original person.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Alright, then you don't understand logic. It's not chance. It's determinism. It's not "implausible." It's "necessary." Read up on the concepts and try again before you bring up this creationist BS.

lol I've read a lot on evolution. I also understand determinism very well. To dismiss chance as an irrelevant factor is erroneous logic.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

It's not "implausible." It's "necessary."

Thank you!!

You just proved my point. It's putatively necessary because any explaining scenarios that are impossible must be ruled out and therefore whatever's left, no matter how improbable (implausible), is the logical (and only) explanation by default. So then, why embrace such a fallible theory?....

Originally Posted by MrRubix

It's "necessary."

YES!!! You got it right.

lmao you completely inadvertently proved my point. Give yourself a high five.

[MrRubix]

No, you just misunderstood what I mean by "necessary" -- it is not "finding truth through the decay of untruth." A necessary condition means something has to be in place for something else to happen. You wouldn't be able to make any of these observations in the first place if you weren't, on some level, fairly complex to begin with, for instance. Also consider how many simultaneous trials (i.e. consider the size of the universe) we have for such a system. Once you realize this, you'll see why your argument falls flat on its face. Our planet is in the right place and composed of the right materials such that it was able to support life -- starting from the extremely simple, evolving to become more and more complex.

And don't bring that chance crap in here (if you claim to understand determinism so well, you wouldn't even dare bring such a thing up). Seriously, get out of this thread.

[MrRubix]

mhs1992, new xkcd comic -- funny yet relevant:

[Arch0wl]

I'm amused by the joke and repulsed by the presumption that a student of philosophy would use the "you just don't like that..." structure for a retort. :P

[devonin]

Because Randall isn't possibly suggesting that the philosopher in question is a BAD philosopher, if they are thinking that they've overturned special relativity with a thought experiment involving a racecar on a train.