On 1/13/2013 12:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 2:13 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 1/12/2013 11:37 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 12:50 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 1/12/2013 9:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com
<mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
<mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use
that
definition of God [ a omnipotent omniscient being who created
the
universe] . I find it unlikely that most theists would
incorporate
every facet of that definition.
That's true. Many theists, the more intelligent ones anyway, reject
the
idea of God but they become so in love with a word they play a
silly and
rather cowardly game. If, as so many have, you redefine the word
"God" to
mean "a power greater than myself" then I am a theist who firmly
believes
in God because I believe that bulldozers exist. But if by "God" you
mean a
being with super-human abilities then God is just a comic book
superhero
(or supervillan) and I am a agnostic about something like that
actually
existing somewhere in the universe.
> It doesn't matter if 95% of theisms are ones you find fault
with; it
only takes one correct theism to make atheism wrong, which is
why I
think it is an untenable and illogical position.
Obviously I can't refute every one of the tens of thousands of Gods
that
humans have invented over the eons,
It is not about refuting all of them. It is that maybe there are some
you
would do believe in, if you knew more about them. Even one who has
spent
years studying all known human religions lacks knowledge about religions
unknown to history, or any of the individually developed privately known
religions, or religions of other species or civilizations on other planets.
How can anyone presume to know enough to know that they are all false?
but your statement assumes that if there is no hard evidence for or
against a theory then there is a 50% chance that it is correct and
thus
worthy of serious consideration. And that is idiotic.
I never said there was a 50% probability, or that all theories are
worthy of
serious consideration. I do find it absurd, however, to reject all
theories
when one has no evidence for or against them. Why not remain neutral
until
you have a reason otherwise? Also, if you don't think 50% is a valid
starting
point, what do you suggest is a good /prior probability/ to use in
Bayesian
inference when one lacks any evidence for or against a proposition?
> John said that he "just believes in one less god" than I do,
but he
refused to say what that one God was that I believed in but he
doesn't.
I don't believe in a omnipotent omniscient being that created the
universe
and I think you do.
No you don't. I've said before an omniscient being does not have the
power to
forget, and hence cannot be considered omnipotent. However, if you
limit
those words to refer to something else, like a universe (rather than to
itself, where the contradiction is created), then it may be possible to
be
both omniscient and omnipotent in reference to that other thing.
Since you and I are both platonists, we agree that anything not ruled
out by
its definition exists. So you should agree there are instances in the
plentitude where beings create vast simulations of entire universes. We
humans have already played this role in creating relatively simple GoL
universes. In the context of the simulation, a being can know
everything
about it and simultaneously exercise complete control over it, even
changing
the laws or altering its natural progression of the simulation.
As one who often writes simulations, I note that I *don't* know
everything
about them and the reason I create them is to find out something I don't know.
Of course you may say that I could find it out, after the simulation has run -
but that does seem to be what the religious mean by omniscient since
they
include knowing things before they happen.
Time doesn't translate between universes. Consider two independent
universes A,
and B each with inhabitants. For those inhabitants in universe A, you
cannot say
what time is it in universe B, whether universe B even started or is it
already
over. Time only has meaning in the context of existing within some
universe. The
same is true of the full trace of your simulations execution. From our
perspective
there is no time, it is a timeless object which we can inspect and one can
know the
beginning and end and all the details in between.
If you believe everything with a consistent definition exists, then
there
exists a universe just like ours that was created by a being who knows
everything that happens in it and has complete control to alter it in
any way
that being sees fit. There is nothing inconsistent or impossible about this.
So you have a choice: either abandon platonism or abandon atheism. The two
are incompatible.
If it's possible we live in a simulation, it's also possible we don't.
So I
don't see the incompatibility.
It doesn't matter which one we are in. If you accept Platonism then you by
extension accept these semi-omniscient, semi-omnipotent beings exist. When
Atheism
says they do not.
Also the question of which one we are in is ambiguous if you consider that
multiple
instances of ourselves (with identical mind states) exist in such
simulations. In
what sense are we not in them?
This is more easily demonstrable when you use other definitions of God,
such
as when you identify the platonic plenitude with the Hindu's Brahman.
You and
Brent seem hell-bent on using a definition where God is an omniscient
and
omnipotent person,
And beneficent and answers prayers. Other gods who may have created the
universe for amusement and who are not beneficent are possible. Gods
who
created this universe as a simulation to see how it turns out and who
therefore
never meddle in it, deist gods are possible.
But many things are possible. I don't go around believing them just
because
they are possible.
Then you are not a Platonist.
I thought you'd never notice.
A-theism doesn't mean believing there are no gods, it just means
failing to
believe there are gods (at least theist ones).
Do you agree or disagree with the stronger form of Atheism that rejects
deist gods?
so I offer the above example of the simulation hypothesis as an example
more
fitting to your definition.
While on this subject, I have another question for you and Brent: Do you
believe in an afterlife or immortality?
I think the evidence is against it.
What evidence is there against it?
People don't remember previous lives (and don't tell me about Bridey
Murphy).
Maybe you will when you wake up from this one. Consciousness will continue along any
path it can,
And maybe not. How is that consistent with the idea that consciousness is a process and
not a thing. What capabilities do you imagine that it can employee so that it can continue?
including those paths which may be less likely than normal (such as finding your entire
life as Brent Meeker to be a dream, or the experience of a God-like mind who has
infinite computing resources at its disposal, and chooses to explore reality first-hand,
by becoming all the possible beings in it).
Or as Saibal Mitra suggested, when my consciousness is reduced to that of a baby I'll be
reincarnated as some baby. But that runs into the identity sans memory question. As
Saibal said, "The person I was when I was 3 years old is dead. He died because
too much new information was added to his brain."
Consciousness is interrupted by a blow to the head or too much Jack Daniels
- so
it's not likely it survives decay of the brain.
Yes, if you ignored what I said about infinite other instantiations of your brain
elsewhere. Also, as brain states decline in complexity it becomes more likely that it
will intersect that of another (perhaps developing) brain elsewhere, leading to
reincarnation.
From a third-person view, consciousness can be interrupted. But when have you ever
lived that interruption first hand?
I see the following evidence for it:
Nearly all scientists would agree that the material identity is not
important to
continuity of consciousness. Therefore any time the appropriate
instantiation
arises, consciousness can continue. In an infinitely large and varied
reality
(Platonism, QM, infinite hubble volume, or eternal inflation), our patterns
continually reappear.
That would imply that copies of one's soul exist. But John defined souls
as being
impossible to copy.
So you reject the possibility of what I said above on the basis that souls
cannot be copied?
I don't accept it as likely if that's what you mean by 'reject'. What's your definition
of "soul"? Can it be duplicated? You seem to imply that your think your soul and the
rest of you already exists in infinitely many copies - in which case I would wonder what
you aren't all of them, like the Borg. And if you're not all of them now, why would you
suppose you would become one of them when you die?
Just as you might find a certain string of digits appear infinitely often
in the
digits of Pi. If consciousness is informational/computational, and no
special
properties are required by the matter of the substrate,
But John contrasted soul with information. What definition are you using?
You ask
for definitions and then you start making assertions apparently based on
some
definition you invented.
The only word I used in the above quote was "consciousness". I refrained from using the
less defined "soul".
then we may even be resurrected or reincarnated in entirely different universes.
We can therefore survive even the heat death of this universe.
And how will we know it is us?
The same way you remember you are you from moment to moment.
Then why aren't we surrounded by people who remember previous lives? Why don't we
remember them?
Will we remember this life? If not, I'd say it's not us.
Some continuation paths will.
Immortality is given if consciousness is mechanistic and that reality is
infinite
in time, extent, or variety. There are plenty of scientific theories
suggesting
both of these requirements exist.
Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
That's a liberal theologians question: There's a word "soul" I'd like to use.
Please think of something it applies to so we can agree that it exists.
The word "energy" has existed for thousands of years, yet with each
generation its
actual meaning has evolved through our greater understanding of the
mechanics
behind it.
Whereas "soul" has evolved to have no definite meaning at all - which is
not doubt
why you wanted John and I to define it rather than defining it yourself or
simply
referring to its (non-existent) common meaning.
I am attempting to change that. I think science is revealing reasons for a set of
beliefs not unlike those found across many of the world's religions. Ultimately, we may
have a set of agreed upon definitions for words like "soul" as we now do for words like
"energy".
Maybe. But why suppose they will bear any more resemblance to the religious concept than
"energy" bears to the biblical "sweat of the brow".
Brent
Jason
It is the nature of progress for the meanings of words to change while the
particular words remain and survive through the newly evolved
understanding. If we
had to change our vocabulary each time we learned something new about a
concept we
would find reading past texts impossible.
I'd be happy to agree with any definition that captures common usage
and is
definite. I think common usage equates soul with the basic character
and
expressed values of a person or other agent.
John provided a number of good elements to in his definition which both
largely
fits with the existing usage and is scientifically justified.
It's a confusion of categories to say a definition is scientifically
justified. And
John didn't define "soul" he just listed some attributes that he thought it
should have.
Brent
"Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the
dream that their souls are separate and self-existing
entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious
about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven.
Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness of the
immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind
due to his conception of Self and craving for existence."
--- Siddhartha Gautama
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
