On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:23 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 1/13/2013 12:34 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 2:13 AM, meekerdb <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> 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>wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <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. > I didn't mean it in the sense of what you believe. Rather it was regarding my argument that platonism and atheism are mutually incompatible. Our exchange went as follows: Jason: So you have a choice: either abandon platonism or abandon atheism. The two are incompatible. Brent: If it's possible we live in a simulation, it's also possible we don't. So I don't see the incompatibility. Jason: 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. Brent: But many things are possible. I don't go around believing them just because they are possible. Jason: Then you are not a Platonist. You are not a Platonist and an atheist. There is no contradiction there. However, others on this list claim to be both a Platonist and an atheist. > > > >> >>> 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? > > Consider the quantum suicide experiment, or the Shrodinger's cat experiment from the perspective of the cat. From the first-person perspective consciousness cannot end, regardless of how low the third-person probability may be. > > 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. > Could you point me to where he said this? I am interested in reading what he has to say. > 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." > I think both reincarnation (to another being with a simple brain state), and resurrection (awaking as a more complex being where the current life is a memory) are both possible extensions. MWI would suggest we not only get an infinite number of lives but an infinite number of afterlives too. > > > > >> 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, > I believe I am all of them, and would go beyond that saying I believe I am everyone. > like the Borg. > Unlike the Borg my disparate selves are not mind-linked. > And if you're not all of them now, why would you suppose you would become > one of them when you die? > > Consider a YouTube of the future that is full-immersion full-sense experience sharing. If thousands of people share the same experience, who is its true owner? When the clip ends, do you know who you will be? Our lives might be like short clips or games to any sufficiently advanced civilization. You might say billions of beings have experienced your life, and when your life is over you may wake up as any of them (indeed you wake up as all of them) but that experience bifurcates as with the Washington Moscow duplication. > > > >> >> >> 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? > > Why should we? We are in this life on Earth at the moment. A god-like mind or omega point civilization cannot know what it was like to be a human living on Earth if they still remember they are a God or an advanced alien. > > > >> 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". > > I think the concepts are rather close. Already we can see parallels emerging: reincarnation, resurrection, becoming one with God, immortality, afterlives, identity of all minds, etc. I can't think of a more fitting word than *soul*. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.