Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by 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.

I still have a lot to say about that thought experiment. I still don't feel like you've "directly" answered to everything. Instead of saying "I did answer to everything", let's just proceed until I have finished.

Don't you wonder why I still think that there is a conflict? Don't you consider the possibility that I noticed something that you didn't, in this thought experiment? Wait, don't answer now, I'll still reply to your final answer.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Alright. I know that if I tell you "that's not what I'm doing", it'll be pointless.

I did say that "people see what they want to see" because that's what I noticed so far.

The ideal would be for people to seek the truth and believe in the truth because it is the truth, not because they "want" to believe in it. But, usually, there is something that makes people lean towards a side, even if they aren't truly aware of that.

Are you an atheist only because of what you mentioned, or do you somehow connect the act of believing in God or afterlife, regardless of the reason, with ignorance? Well, I think that there are some cultural reasons for that. Usually, religious people are ignorant. After living with several ignorant and religious people, some people tend to dislike religion. Are you sure that it isn't one of the reasons?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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

There IS a problem. Please, please, PLEASE read this carefully, try to be as impartial as you can, because I cannot *not* see a conflict. Assuming that your answer is true:

*After* the structure was completely destroyed, after all the atoms were spread and there was no longer any connection between them, if I somehow find these specific atoms and recreate your body, *you* will feel like you've woken up. But this will NOT happen if I pick different atoms, because it will be a clone.

You know this: the entity with different atoms will be identical to you, and will feel exactly like you. But *you* will still feel nothing.

Just answer: WHY will you still be limited to those same atoms after they were spread around the world?

Do you still think that there is a structure? Because there clearly isn't.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

A necessary condition means something has to be in place for something else to happen.

lol That's exactly what I said.

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

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.

You disappoint me being unable to see this. It's rudimentary reasoning. IMO you just seriously damaged your credibility.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Once you realize this, you'll see why your argument falls flat on its face.

lol That's hardly compelling. I'm reading a few books on nutrition/medicine atm, but once I'm done I'm gonna read a couple more on evolution.

I'm considering Dawkin's book. What do you think?

Apparently the most compelling evidence for evolution aside from the process-of-elimination aspect deemed indelible by evolutionists like yourself, are the genetic and fossil similarities.

Though this is intended to refute creationism the irony is that they're mutually inclusive aspects. So the argument is inherently flawed.

I've read quite a bit on evolution, but again I'd like to read more. So, any other suggestions aside from Dawkin's book?

[MrRubix]

NTM, not even going to begin addressing your points as it's clear you're trolling (and no, wrt necessary conditions, that is not what you said). You cannot always arrive at truth by decay of untruth. So, if you want to say my credibility is damaged as a result of saying that, then all I have to say is LOL l2logic.

Creationism is an absolutely retarded argument for a variety of reasons, and I fully understand why Dawkins doesn't even bother to debate people who believe in it, and have almost come to the point of taking a similar stance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxGMqKCcN6A

The most compelling evidence for evolution is that it's consistent with everything else we've discovered and solves multiple problems of complexity in one fell swoop -- it IS extremely compelling if you actually LOOK at the evidence. It isn't just "well we have nothing better." Evolution SOLVES the problem.

[MrRubix]

mhss1992:

-There is a side people lean to when evidence points to it. If there's evidence of a contrary, then obviously people need to consider it. The "want" to believe in something without compelling evidence is what we call "magical thinking" aka what most religions imply.
-I am atheist because of everything I've mentioned, yes. I used to believe in God until I questioned why. Why don't you believe in Santa Claus? Well, there's overwhelming evidence to suggest that there isn't a magical man who delivers presents to everyone in a night. Likewise with God, there's a ton of evidence to suggest that no such being needs to exist, much like we don't need Santa to explain how we got presents under the tree as kids. The difference is that the evidence is a bit harder to understand with respect to God.

Re: your thought experiment again: Sure, if you find the same parts that initially composed me, and brought me back, I'd feel like I was brought back. If you used different atoms, you're bringing back a clone, because it's a clone. Not me. A clone by definition would technically be something exactly like us but ISN'T us. Obviously, any clone is not us, and we would never see or experience what a clone would. So it is intuitive that if we use the same parts, we get the same perspective. Different parts, different perspective (given that the parts in question are what compose a self-identified perspective).

Your question is a sort of tautology. You would be limited to those atoms after they were spread because you came from those atoms. It's why you're you and why you're not me, and vice-versa. I am the result of my specific atoms, and you are the result of your specific atoms. Going by this physical argument, then, the formation of MrRubix body parts results in a MrRubix perspective. A formation of mhs1992 body parts results in a mhs1992 perspective. It's like asking why is atom A atom A and not atom B? A is A because A is A and B is B. Separate things are separate things. There's no structure if you distribute the atoms, but that doesn't mean you can't recreate the structure by simply putting the atoms back together.

[Izzy]

I'm impressed rubix. How do you keep this up?

[mhss1992]

Izzy is the kind of person who doesn't care about what's going on in a discussion, at all. His reactions depend entirely on the fact that I disagree with him.

He even answered different things than you did, but it seems like you didn't even notice. He said that different brains with the same composition have the same perspective, which shows that he clearly had no idea what he was talking about. But neither of you care, as long as you're on the same side.

It's annoying.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

mhss1992:
Re: your thought experiment again: Sure, if you find the same parts that initially composed me, and brought me back, I'd feel like I was brought back. If you used different atoms, you're bringing back a clone, because it's a clone. Not me. A clone by definition would technically be something exactly like us but ISN'T us. Obviously, any clone is not us, and we would never see or experience what a clone would. So it is intuitive that if we use the same parts, we get the same perspective. Different parts, different perspective (given that the parts in question are what compose a self-identified perspective).

We are constantly switching between "individual atoms don't matter/different parts, different perspective". We will keep doing this until you try to see beyond the obvious. And seeing beyond the obvious doesn't mean "believing in a soul", it's just paying attention.

I ask you that you answer each topic separately, because I want to know your specific answers to each of them.



You didn't answer why the atoms that were spread and disconnected are still related with the original perspective. They are the same atoms... What of it? I thought we agreed that the perspective does not depend on individual atoms.
You said that we can swap the atoms in the ashes of a brain, recreate the brain, and it will bring back the same person. Why can't we directly swap the atoms that are no longer connected and do the same?

What is the difference? Is there some kind of drawn line between "continuous swap/discrete swap", even when the matter that composes something is completely disconnected?



Will your perspective get magically connected with new atoms as long as the atoms that formed your brain are together in the form of a pile of ash or some juice? Will your perspective NOT get magically connected with new atoms if I swap the disconnected individual, isolated atoms that originally formed your brain?

How do you explain this?

In both cases, I am not creating a brain with different atoms after I created a brain with the same atoms. Why is only the second case a clone?




There are just so many things I can ask.

If I swap the atoms in the ashes of your brain, spread them around the world, find them and put them in the form of ashes again, swap the atoms again... Do this a thousand times, will it still bring you back? It won't be a clone?

Well, you said that, if I swapped the atoms in the ashes, it would be a continuous swap and it would still make the same structure, and it WOULD bring the person back. It wouldn't be a clone. YOU said that.





And, guess what, you invented that. There's no physical evidence whatsoever saying that a person will be brought back if I swap the atoms of the ashes from their dead brain. We know it happens during our lifetime, but not necessarily in death. There can't be evidence, because we don't see the perspective of the other person. It's just faith. Other materialists could have answered different things. And it would also lead to conflicts.

Anyway, if, in the second case, where the atoms are disconnected, the perspective is still limited to those same atoms, how can it be, if the perspective doesn't exist anymore?

[Izzy]

If I recall I said something along the lines of them being the same perspective as long as we agree that we have the same perspective from one day to the next. We also have to assume we are in the same body.

You can make up whatever you want about me It doesn't really mean anything. As far as I'm concerned there hasn't been anything contributed to this thread in many pages.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by N.T.M.

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.

You consider citing a ...hilariously inaccurate creationist website that is deceitfully attempting to discredit evolution as doing *research* ?

No wonder people are so confused about evolution. Garbage like this is all over the internet.

Evolution is a well established fact. With that said, abiogenesis isn't.

If you want some free information on evolution, you could start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

An article on why some of the main arguments against abiogenesis are dead wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Izzy

If I recall I said something along the lines of them being the same perspective as long as we agree that we have the same perspective from one day to the next. We also have to assume we are in the same body.

You can make up whatever you want about me It doesn't really mean anything. As far as I'm concerned there hasn't been anything contributed to this thread in many pages.

1. You do disrespect me just because I don't agree with you. You've said that I am opinionated and that my arguments have fallacies, but you never explained why. The worst part is that you said it without even trying to understand what I was talking about. Respect me, and I'll respect you.

2. You did say the words "If you removed the brain of someone and replaced it with a brain of the exact same composition with memories and all then it is still the same perspective as before.". I'm sorry, but this affirmation makes absolutely no sense if you consider the context. We were talking about different things. Rubix understood that. He knew that if I took a brain and replaced it with a copy, the new brain would have it's own "perspective", even though it had exactly the same thoughts. But you didn't accept the fact that we were talking about different kinds of "perspectives" and complained even more. You just can't argue without understanding what the discussion is about, sorry.

[MrRubix]

mhs1992, I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree. I've made my points very clear and you are free to take them as you wish. I think we're just going in circles at this point -- everything we're bringing up on this page has already been addressed, so I am going to have to echo Izzy on this point.

If it's any consolation mhs1992, I do think that you've brought up some great arguments to question the physical argument -- probably better than most theists I've ever spoken to -- but I do feel that all of your questions are adequately answered by the argument itself. Again, consider the simple truth that we do feel a continuous perspective/existence even though our atoms swap out. Clearly what is important are the *parts* and not the atoms themselves. This is not the same as making different parts with different atoms altogether, of course. There's a difference between destroying the original and pointing to a new clone, and replacing the original with new changes over time. This is not only consistent physically, but consistent empirically as well.

+1 to Reach -- I feel like there's so much crap out there such that people get the wrong ideas about evolution. If you understand evolution, it's very convincing -- and for good reason (the evidence is overwhelming). But when garbage gets perpetuated, it's easy to see how people can be misled.

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by Reach

Evolution is a well established fact. With that said, abiogenesis isn't.

Abiogenesis MUST have existed for evolution to have taken place. Whether on earth, or seeded by ETs, abiogenesis must have initiated life somewhere after the big bang. To quote somebody else here, "it's necessary."

Anyway, thanks for the links. I'll be sure to read those. Much appreciated.

Oh, and just for the record, trust me when I say that all religions are fallible. My only argument was the existence of some "greater power." Also, I know that a lot of creationist evidence is inaccurate. Some is valid, but often debates are made without sufficient information. (just to concede to one of your points)

*edit* Also, evolution as it's technically defined is accurate, but I don't believe that it's accurate to the extent of stemming from a single ancestry.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

mhss1992:

-There is a side people lean to when evidence points to it. If there's evidence of a contrary, then obviously people need to consider it. The "want" to believe in something without compelling evidence is what we call "magical thinking" aka what most religions imply.
-I am atheist because of everything I've mentioned, yes. I used to believe in God until I questioned why. Why don't you believe in Santa Claus? Well, there's overwhelming evidence to suggest that there isn't a magical man who delivers presents to everyone in a night. Likewise with God, there's a ton of evidence to suggest that no such being needs to exist, much like we don't need Santa to explain how we got presents under the tree as kids. The difference is that the evidence is a bit harder to understand with respect to God.

The claim of trolling is both a trite and abused method of discrediting your opponent. It'd also constitute an ad hominem which reflects terribly on yourself.

I too have analyzed things objectively to reach my current perspectives. Seeing as it's futile, however, to rebroach that is pointless.

I was sincere when I was asking about a book recommendation. I can respect others' beliefs (evolutionists for example) while maintaining integrity. Completely excluding the argument, you disappoint me.

(rescinding all contentions)

[MrRubix]

If you're not trolling, then you're just stupid. Maybe that'll help clear things up.

By the way, nothing I've said is ad hominem. You might want to actually understand certain overused Latin phrases before you toss them into the mix. Flaming != ad hominem.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

mhs1992, I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree. I've made my points very clear and you are free to take them as you wish. I think we're just going in circles at this point -- everything we're bringing up on this page has already been addressed, so I am going to have to echo Izzy on this point.

Okay.

I don't have many new things to say, either. I still can't conceive certain things like the "in death" continuous swapping. There's also that older thought experiment about slowly changing a person's brain into another: it just doesn't feel like the answer is that easy.

But I'm not going to discuss anything else. I still have my reasons to believe in what I do, and you have yours. I just can't make you feel like I do. Well... Unless one of us changes their mind first, we will have to wait until we die for an agreement (or nothing).

[Reach]

Abiogenesis MUST have existed for evolution to have taken place. Whether on earth, or seeded by ETs, abiogenesis must have initiated life somewhere after the big bang. To quote somebody else here, "it's necessary."

Anyway, thanks for the links. I'll be sure to read those. Much appreciated.

Oh, and just for the record, trust me when I say that all religions are fallible. My only argument was the existence of some "greater power." Also, I know that a lot of creationist evidence is inaccurate. Some is valid, but often debates are made without sufficient information. (just to concede to one of your points)

*edit* Also, evolution as it's technically defined is accurate, but I don't believe that it's accurate to the extent of stemming from a single ancestry.

Abiogenesis refers to a very specific theory or field for studying and detailing the origins of life on Earth. Don't confuse it with the origin of life, becuase it's not technically the same thing. Yes 'life' is required for Evolution to occur....but, that's obvious and as such the validity of evolution is not in any way dependent on the validity of abiogenesis.


Also, if you believe evolution is technically accurate you have to accept single ancestry. Otherwise you don't quite understand.

There is a very intuitive and obvious way to prove this. Let's start with a hypothetical by saying you and your significant other are the first lifeforms on Earth. You reproduce. Your children reproduce, etc. Your children are related to you, and their children are related to them which in turn makes them related to you.

Etc, which by definition means that every organism that will ever proceed you is fundamentally related to you.

I don't see why this isn't completely and utterly obvious, so maybe you mean something else.

[Izzy]

And incest leads to mutation/evolution. The bible all makes sense now. Hah.

Edit: Does the bible say anything about incest being bad? If so then it contradicts itself. I guess that is no surprise though.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by Reach

Abiogenesis refers to a very specific theory or field for studying and detailing the origins of life on Earth. Don't confuse it with the origin of life, becuase it's not technically the same thing. Yes 'life' is required for Evolution to occur....but, that's obvious and as such the validity of evolution is not in any way dependent on the validity of abiogenesis.


Also, if you believe evolution is technically accurate you have to accept single ancestry. Otherwise you don't quite understand.

There is a very intuitive and obvious way to prove this. Let's start with a hypothetical by saying you and your significant other are the first lifeforms on Earth. You reproduce. Your children reproduce, etc. Your children are related to you, and their children are related to them which in turn makes them related to you.

Etc, which by definition means that every organism that will ever proceed you is fundamentally related to you.

I don't see why this isn't completely and utterly obvious, so maybe you mean something else.

Precisely correct -- the concepts are technically separate.


Izzy: A Google reveals:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...ut/incest.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/ans...ions/site/iiim
http://listverse.com/2008/05/26/top-...-in-the-bible/
and http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/faq_bq.shtml for epic lols

[N.T.M.]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

By the way, nothing I've said is ad hominem. You might want to actually understand certain overused Latin phrases before you toss them into the mix. Flaming != ad hominem.

lol Nope. Want me to define it for you?

Originally Posted by Reach

Abiogenesis refers to a very specific theory or field for studying and detailing the origins of life on Earth. Don't confuse it with the origin of life, becuase it's not technically the same thing. Yes 'life' is required for Evolution to occur....but, that's obvious and as such the validity of evolution is not in any way dependent on the validity of abiogenesis.

Sounds like a paradox.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

Precisely correct -- the concepts are technically separate.

They're not mutually exclusive. They must coexist.

Originally Posted by Izzy

And incest leads to mutation/evolution. The bible all makes sense now. Hah.

Edit: Does the bible say anything about incest being bad? If so then it contradicts itself. I guess that is no surprise though.

Nobody here's talking about the bible.

Originally Posted by Reach

Also, if you believe evolution is technically accurate you have to accept single ancestry. Otherwise you don't quite understand.

There is a very intuitive and obvious way to prove this. Let's start with a hypothetical by saying you and your significant other are the first lifeforms on Earth. You reproduce. Your children reproduce, etc. Your children are related to you, and their children are related to them which in turn makes them related to you.

Etc, which by definition means that every organism that will ever proceed you is fundamentally related to you.

I don't see why this isn't completely and utterly obvious, so maybe you mean something else.

Yeah I meant something else, but no worries.

[Reach]

Sounds like a paradox.

Why?

There's no paradox.

Is the following what you're trying to say? If not, you should explain, because no paradox exists. The only paradox here could be if you and I mean completely different things.

Assumptions:

1. Life is necessary for evolution to occur.
2. Abiogenesis is a theory of how life began.
3. Therefore...abiogenesis is necessary for evolution to occur.

Clearly 3 is a contradiction. LIFE is necessary for evolution to occur, but not abiogenesis given that is just a model of how life began.

Abiogenesis is probably right anyway, but when I say that it's not a fact, I mean precisely that, but I do not mean in any way that it's just a hypothesis and there's no good evidence or reason to believe it's true. It's just not as well supported as say, Evolution, which is undeniably true in light of overwhelmingly large mountains of multidisciplinary evidence.

[MrRubix]

NTM, they do not need to coexist. Like Reach said, abiogenesis is just one of many theories. Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis -- it requires life. The honest answer to how life began is "We don't really know, but we can make some reasonable conclusions supported by evidence and experiment," and abiogenesis is one such reasonable approach, unlike the "what spawned the universe" question which nobody really has a good answer for. You can try to tackle it from a quantum perspective, but it's still quite hazy.

Anyways, ad hominem is when you try to discredit someone's argument with something logically disconnected from the topic. "Why should we believe his opinion -- he's a troll, so we shouldn't listen to what he says" would be one such approach because it doesn't directly refute the argument and instead provides some other explanation. In this case, I still refuted your points and just flamed you in the process -- this isn't an ad hominem attack. You are simply incorrect to begin with.

At any rate, we have a firm understanding of forces and interactions to the extent that it's foolish to say "it's so improbable for these types of structures to arise" -- an argument you posted earlier in this thread. It's akin to the fallacious "Tornado in a junkyard" argument -- it totally misses the point. We have forces that are VERY much deterministic. These forces, when present in a given environment containing materials and conditions NECESSARY FOR LIFE (imagine that?), can allow for self-replicating structures to occur. Slowly, these structures change and we eventually start to see the emergence of more complex forms, giving way to what we know as evolution. If you read that abiogenesis site Reach linked to, it gives a fairly good explanation for how all of this is possible.

There have also been a few experiments done (I admit I know little about them) that have shown how various amino acids can form naturally (given the conditions of early Earth are replicated in terms of what interacts with the relevant chemicals) -- and all without the need of a creator.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

There have also been a few experiments done (I admit I know little about them) that have shown how various amino acids can form naturally (given the conditions of early Earth are replicated in terms of what interacts with the relevant chemicals) -- and all without the need of a creator.

Pasteur's experiment?