>GOD means the reality in which you believe.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
1) Choose some religion, it doesn't matter which
2) Find an idea some adherents of that religion put forward but almost no one seriously believes in or is easily shown to be inconsistent
3) Assume that because you have disproved one idea of one religion that all ideas found in all religions are false and/or unscientific
4) Bask in the feeling of superiority over those who are not so enlightened
Jason
But your parody fails as a serious argument because the ideas put forward by *almost all theists* include a very powerful, beneficent, all knowing superbeing who will judge and reward and punish souls in an after life and who answers prayers.On 1/11/2013 2:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM, <Spudb...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 1/11/2013 2:27:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, jason...@gmail.com writes:1) Choose some religion, it doesn't matter which
2) Find an idea some adherents of that religion put forward but almost no one seriously believes in or is easily shown to be inconsistent
3) Assume that because you have disproved one idea of one religion that all ideas found in all religions are false and/or unscientific
4) Bask in the feeling of superiority over those who are not so enlightened
Jason
Ok, so in Darwinian fashion you sort through hundreds of faiths, so what happens when you cannot dissprove a religion? You sort them down till you hit a toughie, does that make it automatically correct, or is it the intellectual limitation of the sorter? Your Basking, is angering many non-believers, even. Witness Higg's criticism of Dawkins. Believers, Jason, I suppose will merely, pray for your soul (poor lad!).Perhaps if you decided to create your own religion, that couldn't be disproved, based on physics, or math, you would be coming up with the best faith? Then we could all be converted to being Jasonites. Or Reschers-whichever you prefer?
I'm nor sure I understand your point. My point was only that John's adherence to atheism, which he defines as belief in no Gods, is less rational than someone following his 4-step program to become a liberal theologian.
In particular, it is the above step 3, rejecting all religious ideas as false without giving the idea a fair scientific evaluation, which is especially problematic. John is perhaps being prescient in turning a blind eye to these other ideas, as otherwise we might have the specter of a self-proclaimed atheist who finds scientific justification for after lives, reincarnation, karma, beings who exercise complete control over worlds of their design and creation, as well as a self-existent changeless infinite object responsible for the existence of all reality.
He would rather avoid those topics altogether and take solace in denying specific instances of inconsistent or silly definitions of God.
Now some, far from powerful, humans with far from complete information, eliminated smallpox from the world. God therefore must have had that power and simply chose not to do it. So if any very powerful, very knowledgeable superbeing exists, it is not beneficent and not an acceptable judge of good and evil. These are not just a peripheral idea of theisms and it's falsehood is not a minor point because all theism insist that these ideas are definitive of their religion.
John didn't say that all religions are false or unscientific. His point was that you can avoid those attributes by becoming a *liberal theologian* - and incidentally that nothing follows from liberal theology.
> He [me] would rather avoid those topics altogether and take solace in denying specific instances of inconsistent or silly definitions of God.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
But your parody fails as a serious argument because the ideas put forward by *almost all theists* include a very powerful, beneficent, all knowing superbeing who will judge and reward and punish souls in an after life and who answers prayers.On 1/11/2013 2:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM, <Spudb...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 1/11/2013 2:27:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, jason...@gmail.com writes:1) Choose some religion, it doesn't matter which
2) Find an idea some adherents of that religion put forward but almost no one seriously believes in or is easily shown to be inconsistent
3) Assume that because you have disproved one idea of one religion that all ideas found in all religions are false and/or unscientific
4) Bask in the feeling of superiority over those who are not so enlightened
Jason
Ok, so in Darwinian fashion you sort through hundreds of faiths, so what happens when you cannot dissprove a religion? You sort them down till you hit a toughie, does that make it automatically correct, or is it the intellectual limitation of the sorter? Your Basking, is angering many non-believers, even. Witness Higg's criticism of Dawkins. Believers, Jason, I suppose will merely, pray for your soul (poor lad!).Perhaps if you decided to create your own religion, that couldn't be disproved, based on physics, or math, you would be coming up with the best faith? Then we could all be converted to being Jasonites. Or Reschers-whichever you prefer?
I'm nor sure I understand your point. My point was only that John's adherence to atheism, which he defines as belief in no Gods, is less rational than someone following his 4-step program to become a liberal theologian.
In particular, it is the above step 3, rejecting all religious ideas as false without giving the idea a fair scientific evaluation, which is especially problematic. John is perhaps being prescient in turning a blind eye to these other ideas, as otherwise we might have the specter of a self-proclaimed atheist who finds scientific justification for after lives, reincarnation, karma, beings who exercise complete control over worlds of their design and creation, as well as a self-existent changeless infinite object responsible for the existence of all reality.
He would rather avoid those topics altogether and take solace in denying specific instances of inconsistent or silly definitions of God.
Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that definition of God. I find it unlikely that most theists would incorporate every facet of that definition.
Even between various sects of Christianity and Islam, views differ regarding whether or not God is all knowing. An all-knowing God implies predestination, which is contested between various groups.
Now some, far from powerful, humans with far from complete information, eliminated smallpox from the world. God therefore must have had that power and simply chose not to do it. So if any very powerful, very knowledgeable superbeing exists, it is not beneficent and not an acceptable judge of good and evil. These are not just a peripheral idea of theisms and it's falsehood is not a minor point because all theism insist that these ideas are definitive of their religion.
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.
On 1/11/2013 9:41 PM, Jason Resch wrote:"Every facet"?? It's only the standard, three omni's of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam except I left the requirements even weaker, plus answering prayers.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
But your parody fails as a serious argument because the ideas put forward by *almost all theists* include a very powerful, beneficent, all knowing superbeing who will judge and reward and punish souls in an after life and who answers prayers.On 1/11/2013 2:17 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM, <Spudb...@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 1/11/2013 2:27:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, jason...@gmail.com writes:1) Choose some religion, it doesn't matter which
2) Find an idea some adherents of that religion put forward but almost no one seriously believes in or is easily shown to be inconsistent
3) Assume that because you have disproved one idea of one religion that all ideas found in all religions are false and/or unscientific
4) Bask in the feeling of superiority over those who are not so enlightened
Jason
Ok, so in Darwinian fashion you sort through hundreds of faiths, so what happens when you cannot dissprove a religion? You sort them down till you hit a toughie, does that make it automatically correct, or is it the intellectual limitation of the sorter? Your Basking, is angering many non-believers, even. Witness Higg's criticism of Dawkins. Believers, Jason, I suppose will merely, pray for your soul (poor lad!).Perhaps if you decided to create your own religion, that couldn't be disproved, based on physics, or math, you would be coming up with the best faith? Then we could all be converted to being Jasonites. Or Reschers-whichever you prefer?
I'm nor sure I understand your point. My point was only that John's adherence to atheism, which he defines as belief in no Gods, is less rational than someone following his 4-step program to become a liberal theologian.
In particular, it is the above step 3, rejecting all religious ideas as false without giving the idea a fair scientific evaluation, which is especially problematic. John is perhaps being prescient in turning a blind eye to these other ideas, as otherwise we might have the specter of a self-proclaimed atheist who finds scientific justification for after lives, reincarnation, karma, beings who exercise complete control over worlds of their design and creation, as well as a self-existent changeless infinite object responsible for the existence of all reality.
He would rather avoid those topics altogether and take solace in denying specific instances of inconsistent or silly definitions of God.
Please provide some reference showing almost all theists use that definition of God. I find it unlikely that most theists would incorporate every facet of that definition.
You're just being obtuse. You know perfectly well that's what theism means.
But there can't be even 'one correct theism' as I pointed out above, the very definition of theism
Even between various sects of Christianity and Islam, views differ regarding whether or not God is all knowing. An all-knowing God implies predestination, which is contested between various groups.
Now some, far from powerful, humans with far from complete information, eliminated smallpox from the world. God therefore must have had that power and simply chose not to do it. So if any very powerful, very knowledgeable superbeing exists, it is not beneficent and not an acceptable judge of good and evil. These are not just a peripheral idea of theisms and it's falsehood is not a minor point because all theism insist that these ideas are definitive of their religion.
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.
allows it to be empirically falsified by the appearance of unnecessary evil, in my example evil that mere human beings had the power to eliminate and did eliminate.
What can you say about a superbeing who can eliminate an evil but chooses not to. You can't say he's the beneficent God of theism.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:> He [me] would rather avoid those topics altogether and take solace in denying specific instances of inconsistent or silly definitions of God.
All I ask is a definition of God that has 2 attributes:
1) It is not silly or inconsistent.
2) There is no other word except G-O-D that works as well.
And when 99.9% of the religious use the word "God" they mean a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe,
and when non-religious people say they believe in God they mean they believe in the word G-O-D and that's it.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@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,
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.
> 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.
> Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
This definition is pretty much identical to that found in some schools of Hinduism.
We might also envision an omega-point civilization creating simulated words containing life forms over which it is omnipotent and omniscient. In fact, if reality is hugely or infinitely varied, e.g., many worlds, eternal inflation, string theory landscapes, then it becomes highly probable if not guaranteed that there are many explanations for your current moment of awareness. You simultaneously exist in many versions of this universe, and some proportion of which may be created by superbeings as part of their exploration of reality.
What would the atheist who believes in a plentitude say then?
Perhaps something like: "I believe God(s) rule(s) over the universe I am in, but only with a relatively small measure across all the universes I am in". What does the statement even mean at that point?
Hi meekerdb As you observe, beliefs can be slippery, because reason is the devil's whore.
That's why we Lutherans rely first on faith (trust in God). Second on the Bible.
On 12 Jan 2013, at 07:00, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He [me] would rather avoid those topics altogether and take solace in denying specific instances of inconsistent or silly definitions of God.
All I ask is a definition of God that has 2 attributes:
1) It is not silly or inconsistent.
You ask already a lot.
2) There is no other word except G-O-D that works as well.
And when 99.9% of the religious use the word "God" they mean a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe,
I am not sure of that. Even restricting ourself to Abramanic religion. The beliefs are quite variate on this.
Bruno
and when non-religious people say they believe in God they mean they believe in the word G-O-D and that's it.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13
Anyway, I don't use the term "god" and "religion" or "theology" in the occidental conventional religion sense. Like I don't use the term "genetics" in the USSR Lyssenko sense.It is irrational to fight against a field from the fact that the curent proponents are a bit delirious about it, which can be explained by the human emotion of some, and the willing of power of others.
Today I disbelieve in the politics of health of most countries, but this is because I do believe in some notion of health.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@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.
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.
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,
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?
Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
On 1/12/2013 9:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote: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.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@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.
If it's possible we live in a simulation, it's also possible we don't. So I don't see the incompatibility.
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.
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.
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,
But many things are possible. I don't go around believing them just because they are possible.
A-theism doesn't mean believing there are no gods, it just means failing to believe there are gods (at least theist ones).
I think the evidence is against it.
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?
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.
Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
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.
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.
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,
then we may even be resurrected or reincarnated in entirely different universes. We can therefore survive even the heat death of this universe.
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.
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.
Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
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.
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.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@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, 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.
> 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.
>> 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.
> Bulldozers are not responsible for your existence.
> one consistent notion of God is enough to make atheism into a dogmatic (non rational) belief
> I have never met a theologian genuinely believing in both omnipotence and omniscience.
> reason is the devil's whore.
> That's why we Lutherans rely first on faith
> Second on the Bible.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:> Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
Strangely enough there is, the soul is the essential must have part of consciousness, therefore I think that Information is as close as you can get to the traditional concept of the soul and still remain within the scientific method.
Consider the similarities:
The soul is non material and so is information.
It's difficult to pin down a unique physical location for the soul, and the same is true for information.
The soul is the essential, must have, part of consciousness, exactly the same situation is true for information.
The soul is immortal and so, potentially, is information.
But there are also important differences.
A soul is unique but information can be duplicated.
The soul is and will always remain unfathomable,
but information is understandable, in fact, information is the ONLY thing that is understandable.
Information unambiguously exists,
I don't think anyone would deny that, but if the soul exists (as distinct from information) it will never be proven scientifically.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
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.
That would imply that copies of one's soul exist. But John defined souls as being impossible to copy.
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.
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.
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,
And how will we know it is us?
then we may even be resurrected or reincarnated in entirely different universes. We can therefore survive even the heat death of this universe.
Will we remember this life? If not, I'd say it's not us.
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.
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.
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.
Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
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.
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.
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.
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
--
People don't remember previous lives (and don't tell me about Bridey Murphy).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?
I think the evidence is against it.
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?
What evidence is there against it?
Maybe you will when you wake up from this one. Consciousness will continue along any path it can,
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).
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?That would imply that copies of one's soul exist. But John defined souls as being impossible to copy.
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.
So you reject the possibility of what I said above on the basis that souls cannot be copied?
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.
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,
The only word I used in the above quote was "consciousness". I refrained from using the less defined "soul".And how will we know it is us?
then we may even be resurrected or reincarnated in entirely different universes. We can therefore survive even the heat death of this universe.
The same way you remember you are you from moment to moment.
Will we remember this life? If not, I'd say it's not us.
Some continuation paths will.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.
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.
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.
Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
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.
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".
Jason
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.
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.
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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
No virus found in this message.
On 1/12/2013 3:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Jan 2013, at 07:00, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Jason Resch <jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He [me] would rather avoid those topics altogether and take solace in denying specific instances of inconsistent or silly definitions of God.
All I ask is a definition of God that has 2 attributes:
1) It is not silly or inconsistent.
You ask already a lot.
2) There is no other word except G-O-D that works as well.
And when 99.9% of the religious use the word "God" they mean a omnipotent omniscient being who created the universe,
I am not sure of that. Even restricting ourself to Abramanic religion. The beliefs are quite variate on this.
Here's the statement of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest protestant sect in the U.S.
-------------
There is one and only one living and true God.
He is an intelligent, spiritual, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver, and Ruler of the universe.
God is infinite in holiness and all other perfections.
God is all powerful and all knowing; and His perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of His free creatures.
To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience.
The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.
God as Father reigns with providential care over His universe, His creatures, and the flow of the stream of human history according to the purposes of His grace.
He is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and all wise. God is Father in truth to those who become children of God through faith in Jesus Christ. He is fatherly in His attitude toward all men.
Anyway, I don't use the term "god" and "religion" or "theology" in the occidental conventional religion sense. Like I don't use the term "genetics" in the USSR Lyssenko sense.It is irrational to fight against a field from the fact that the curent proponents are a bit delirious about it, which can be explained by the human emotion of some, and the willing of power of others.
On the contrary, it is important to fight against it when it's delirious adherents want to use the machinery of government to impose their theology.
Today I disbelieve in the politics of health of most countries, but this is because I do believe in some notion of health.
And I don't believe in the god of theism because I believe in some notion reality.
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do
it from religious conviction.
--- Pascal, Pens'ees
On 1/12/2013 9:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@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.
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.
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. A-theism doesn't mean believing there are no gods, it just means failing to believe there are gods (at least theist ones).
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.
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.
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.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
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.
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.
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? Will we remember this life? If not, I'd say it's not us.
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.
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.
Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
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.
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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
On 1/13/2013 3:13 AM, meekerdb wrote:
>> 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.
Hi,
I disagree, if we bet on comp there is only one soul, just infinitely many 'versions' or 'projections' of it. Consciousness is the 1p associated with the local version, IMHO, unless we allow for 1p that contain experiences that are mutually contradictory.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> God is everything, including this list.
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:>> 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.
> Bulldozers are not responsible for your existence.
Both my parents were bulldozer drivers who first met at a bulldozer convention. So a bulldozer is God.
> one consistent notion of God is enough to make atheism into a dogmatic (non rational) belief
There is no way to make sense out of the notion of God,
but you can redefine the word "God" so radically that it becomes virtually unrecognizable to the billions of religious on this planet, and then and only then does the word "God" correspond with something that actually exists, even if there is already plenty of perfectly good words for that thing. People just want to say they believe in G-O-D, what the word actually means is unimportant.
> I have never met a theologian genuinely believing in both omnipotence and omniscience.
I've had 13 years of formal religious training and I never met a theologian who didn't preach that God was omnipotent and omniscient.
I don't know how many genuinely believed in the bullshit they were spouting but I'd guess most of them did, certainly the vast majority of those listening to the crap swallowed every word of it, in fact I think I was the only one who did not.
On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/12/2013 9:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@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.
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.
If we live in a simulation, we live in an infinity of simulation
(and this is testable below our c-substitution level). It makes the physical reality non simulable, at least in all details.
If 3-we live in a simulation, the 1-we can't, literally speaking.
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.
Can you recall the definition of deism? I am not sure mine is the same as yours. If you have a reference ..?
But many things are possible. I don't go around believing them just because they are possible. A-theism doesn't mean believing there are no gods, it just means failing to believe there are gods (at least theist ones).
That is the quite opposite of most European atheism. They specifically attack me on this, and very violently. European atheist really believe that there is no God, and consider that agnostic are either nuts, or that they are coward atheist just wanting to be polite.
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.
QM and comp provides variate evidence for variate form of after-life. Of course it is usually rather different than in the fairy tales.
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.
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.
I'm OK with this. Of course this is an open problem in arithmetic where the soul is define by the knower (Bp & p) recovered by Theaetetus's method. This fits quite well with Platonism and neoplatonism. Note that here the christians follows Plato: the soul is immortal, where for Aristotle this is untrue, unless for its intellectual part, as even for Aristotle, ideas are "eternal".
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2637/6023 - Release Date: 01/10/13
--
Yes, all creature believe in "God", but this does not make the notion trivial at all, as all creature can "see" God very differently.
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?
People don't remember previous lives (and don't tell me about Bridey Murphy).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?
I think the evidence is against it.
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?
What evidence is there against it?
Maybe you will when you wake up from this one. Consciousness will continue along any path it can,
Or as Saibal Mitra suggested, when my consciousness is reduced to that of a baby I'll be reincarnated as some baby.
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).
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 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,
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?That would imply that copies of one's soul exist. But John defined souls as being impossible to copy.
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.
So you reject the possibility of what I said above on the basis that souls cannot be copied?
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?
Then why aren't we surrounded by people who remember previous lives? Why don't we remember them?
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.
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,
The only word I used in the above quote was "consciousness". I refrained from using the less defined "soul".And how will we know it is us?
then we may even be resurrected or reincarnated in entirely different universes. We can therefore survive even the heat death of this universe.
The same way you remember you are you from moment to moment.
Maybe. But why suppose they will bear any more resemblance to the religious concept than "energy" bears to the biblical "sweat of the brow".
Will we remember this life? If not, I'd say it's not us.
Some continuation paths will.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.
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.
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.
Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
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.
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".
Or as Saibal Mitra suggested, when my consciousness is reduced to that of a baby I'll be reincarnated as some baby.
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).
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.
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,
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?That would imply that copies of one's soul exist. But John defined souls as being impossible to copy.
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.
So you reject the possibility of what I said above on the basis that souls cannot be copied?
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.
Then why aren't we surrounded by people who remember previous lives? Why don't we remember them?
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.
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,
The only word I used in the above quote was "consciousness". I refrained from using the less defined "soul".And how will we know it is us?
then we may even be resurrected or reincarnated in entirely different universes. We can therefore survive even the heat death of this universe.
The same way you remember you are you from moment to moment.
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.
Maybe. But why suppose they will bear any more resemblance to the religious concept than "energy" bears to the biblical "sweat of the brow".
Will we remember this life? If not, I'd say it's not us.
Some continuation paths will.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.
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.
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.
Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
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.
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".
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.
I've had my consciousness interrupted.
There was no mathematical/logical necessity that it resume.
It was on this list, so you could search the archive. I was a few years ago.
Or as Saibal Mitra suggested, when my consciousness is reduced to that of a baby I'll be reincarnated as some baby.
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).
Could you point me to where he said this? I am interested in reading what he has to say.
Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life from their childhood to now?
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.
But you only remember being one, in fact unity is one of the characteristics of most people's consciousness (multiple-personalities are rare).
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,
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?That would imply that copies of one's soul exist. But John defined souls as being impossible to copy.
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.
So you reject the possibility of what I said above on the basis that souls cannot be copied?
I believe I am all of them, and would go beyond that saying I believe I am everyone.
Then why should your present being become linked to them when your brain decays. It would seem to have *more* in common with them if you're both conscious. And if your consciousness is not continuous and switches to a being with different memories - what is it that makes it *your* consciousness?
like the Borg.
Unlike the Borg my disparate selves are not mind-linked.
Nobody, because (a) an experience is only experienced not owned and
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?
(b) no two the people had exactly the same experience, experience is modified by past memories and environment.
All that speculation just throws doubt on whether "you" exist. It's like solipism, a speculation that is logically possible but which nobody believes.
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.
But then they AREN'T a human living on Earth. You can't have it both ways. I a person is just a stream of conscious events, then a different stream is a different person.
Then why aren't we surrounded by people who remember previous lives? Why don't we remember them?
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.
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,
The only word I used in the above quote was "consciousness". I refrained from using the less defined "soul".And how will we know it is us?
then we may even be resurrected or reincarnated in entirely different universes. We can therefore survive even the heat death of this universe.
The same way you remember you are you from moment to moment.
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.
If there is something more that ties together a stream to make a person, then it can be finiteOn the contrary, you are inventing the speculations to fit the religious concepts.
Maybe. But why suppose they will bear any more resemblance to the religious concept than "energy" bears to the biblical "sweat of the brow".
Will we remember this life? If not, I'd say it's not us.
Some continuation paths will.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.
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.
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.
Is there any definition of "soul" you agree with?
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.
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".
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.
On 1/14/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jan 2013, at 07:50, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/12/2013 9:21 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:32 AM, John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Jason Resch <jason...@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.
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.
If we live in a simulation, we live in an infinity of simulation
Are you claiming that as a logical inference, or what?
Can you derive a contradiction from the negation?
(and this is testable below our c-substitution level). It makes the physical reality non simulable, at least in all details.
If 3-we live in a simulation, the 1-we can't, literally speaking.
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.
Can you recall the definition of deism? I am not sure mine is the same as yours. If you have a reference ..?
http://www.theopedia.com/Deism
But many things are possible. I don't go around believing them just because they are possible. A-theism doesn't mean believing there are no gods, it just means failing to believe there are gods (at least theist ones).
That is the quite opposite of most European atheism. They specifically attack me on this, and very violently. European atheist really believe that there is no God, and consider that agnostic are either nuts, or that they are coward atheist just wanting to be polite.
Of course I think it is very unlikely that some gods exist, e.g. Yaweh of the bible or Allah of the Quran, and I don't base any of my decisions on their existence. "Agnostic" has two very different meanings: One is just to think that there is no good evidence for or against the existence of the god under consideration. The other is that it is impossible to have such evidence. But whenever you use a term like theist, atheist, agnostic,... it is relative to some god(s) and to be precise you need to say what god(s).
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.
QM and comp provides variate evidence for variate form of after-life. Of course it is usually rather different than in the fairy tales.
I see only speculation that QM and comp might allow some kind of after-life where 'after-life' is given different meanings.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> Study the field, please.
> In the greek sense you are a believer in God,
> and even close to Aristotle theology, once you believe in the existence of primary matter,
> you are also more christian than the pope as you want God be defined by the current common religion,
> Yes, all creature believe in "God"
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.
But that's just a semantic trick. The first-person perspective consciousness can still be finite. Just because "the end" isn't part of the experience, it doesn't follow that the sequence of experiences continues indefinitely. I've had my consciousness interrupted. There was no mathematical/logical necessity that it resume.
Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life from their childhood to now?
All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly immortal it does't mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our memories all the time. How much of your current life are you recalling at any given moment?
To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or someone else experiencing what it was like to be an original biological human. When this life ends the consciousness original biological humans ends, but it continues as the someone else who experienced that original biological human's life.
the we continue. It is incoherent to say someone else experiences our continuation.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life from their childhood to now?
All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly immortal it does't mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our memories all the time. How much of your current life are you recalling at any given moment?
To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or someone else experiencing what it was like to be an original biological human. When this life ends the consciousness original biological humans ends, but it continues as the someone else who experienced that original biological human's life.
But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of experiences - so if the sequence continues (and I don't know how you distinguish one continuation from a another)
I don't bother trying as I've realized it is futile. I've found only two workable definitions of "you" which don't lead to contradictions:
1) Each observer moment has its own unique experiencer.
2) All observer moments belong to the same experiencer.
The latter at least leads to useful decision theories (like why bother getting out of bed in the morning), while the former seems to lead to nihilism. I prefer the second one.
the we continue. It is incoherent to say someone else experiences our continuation.
Right, there is no "someone else" who experiences something that you do not.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13
On 1/15/2013 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:I love it how empirical contradiction is so easily dismissed.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life from their childhood to now?
All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly immortal it does't mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our memories all the time. How much of your current life are you recalling at any given moment?
To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or someone else experiencing what it was like to be an original biological human. When this life ends the consciousness original biological humans ends, but it continues as the someone else who experienced that original biological human's life.
But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of experiences - so if the sequence continues (and I don't know how you distinguish one continuation from a another)
I don't bother trying as I've realized it is futile. I've found only two workable definitions of "you" which don't lead to contradictions:
1) Each observer moment has its own unique experiencer.
2) All observer moments belong to the same experiencer.
The latter at least leads to useful decision theories (like why bother getting out of bed in the morning), while the former seems to lead to nihilism. I prefer the second one.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:I love it how empirical contradiction is so easily dismissed.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life from their childhood to now?
All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly immortal it does't mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our memories all the time. How much of your current life are you recalling at any given moment?
To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or someone else experiencing what it was like to be an original biological human. When this life ends the consciousness original biological humans ends, but it continues as the someone else who experienced that original biological human's life.
But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of experiences - so if the sequence continues (and I don't know how you distinguish one continuation from a another)
I don't bother trying as I've realized it is futile. I've found only two workable definitions of "you" which don't lead to contradictions:
1) Each observer moment has its own unique experiencer.
2) All observer moments belong to the same experiencer.
The latter at least leads to useful decision theories (like why bother getting out of bed in the morning), while the former seems to lead to nihilism. I prefer the second one.
The theory that you are everyone is not falsified by our experience (the examples I gave above show that one don't need to remember experiencing something in order to have experienced it or to be experiencing it (as a duplicate)).
Further, this theory makes makes fewer assumptions than the single-life theories. Those theories contain an additional assumption that there is some process of selection which led to you being born as you and no one else.
What is your justification for adding this additional assumption when the theory itself explains why we can't recall the perspectives of other people?
It is just like the collapse postulate, which you are also fond of. It serves no useful purpose and needlessly complicates the theory.
On 1/15/2013 8:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:"To be experiencing it as a duplicate (but not remember)" is just double-talk.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:I love it how empirical contradiction is so easily dismissed.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life from their childhood to now?
All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly immortal it does't mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our memories all the time. How much of your current life are you recalling at any given moment?
To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or someone else experiencing what it was like to be an original biological human. When this life ends the consciousness original biological humans ends, but it continues as the someone else who experienced that original biological human's life.
But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of experiences - so if the sequence continues (and I don't know how you distinguish one continuation from a another)
I don't bother trying as I've realized it is futile. I've found only two workable definitions of "you" which don't lead to contradictions:
1) Each observer moment has its own unique experiencer.
2) All observer moments belong to the same experiencer.
The latter at least leads to useful decision theories (like why bother getting out of bed in the morning), while the former seems to lead to nihilism. I prefer the second one.
The theory that you are everyone is not falsified by our experience (the examples I gave above show that one don't need to remember experiencing something in order to have experienced it or to be experiencing it (as a duplicate)).
It just trashes the concept of person, which it pretends to explain.
Do you think you could be a person without memory (ever known someone with severe Alzheimer's?).
A sentence that made sense up until "as you...".
Further, this theory makes makes fewer assumptions than the single-life theories. Those theories contain an additional assumption that there is some process of selection which led to you being born as you and no one else.
It doesn't explain it.
What is your justification for adding this additional assumption when the theory itself explains why we can't recall the perspectives of other people?
In fact it denies there are other people (thus violating Bruno's religion).
No useful purpose except making the theory useful.
It is just like the collapse postulate, which you are also fond of. It serves no useful purpose and needlessly complicates the theory.
On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life from their childhood to now?
All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly immortal it does't mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our memories all the time. How much of your current life are you recalling at any given moment?
To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or someone else experiencing what it was like to be an original biological human. When this life ends the consciousness original biological humans ends, but it continues as the someone else who experienced that original biological human's life.
But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of experiences -
so if the sequence continues (and I don't know how you distinguish one continuation from a another) the we continue.
It is incoherent to say someone else experiences our continuation.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:> Study the field, please.
I could study anthropology or I could study literature or I could study history but I can't study theology because there is nothing there to study. There is no field of inquiry called "theology", there is only glop.
> In the greek sense you are a believer in God,
As I said before many people, such as yourself, are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word"God".
> and even close to Aristotle theology, once you believe in the existence of primary matter,
I once asked you if they study primary matter at CERN and you emphatically said no, so I conclude that whatever "primary matter" is it's a colossal bore.
> you are also more christian than the pope as you want God be defined by the current common religion,
As I said before many people, such as yourself, are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word"God".
John K Clark> Yes, all creature believe in "God"
As I said before many people, such as yourself. are willing to abandon the idea of God but not the word"God"
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:23 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:On 1/15/2013 8:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:"To be experiencing it as a duplicate (but not remember)" is just double-talk.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:I love it how empirical contradiction is so easily dismissed.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life from their childhood to now?
All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly immortal it does't mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our memories all the time. How much of your current life are you recalling at any given moment?
To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or someone else experiencing what it was like to be an original biological human. When this life ends the consciousness original biological humans ends, but it continues as the someone else who experienced that original biological human's life.
But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of experiences - so if the sequence continues (and I don't know how you distinguish one continuation from a another)
I don't bother trying as I've realized it is futile. I've found only two workable definitions of "you" which don't lead to contradictions:
1) Each observer moment has its own unique experiencer.
2) All observer moments belong to the same experiencer.
The latter at least leads to useful decision theories (like why bother getting out of bed in the morning), while the former seems to lead to nihilism. I prefer the second one.
The theory that you are everyone is not falsified by our experience (the examples I gave above show that one don't need to remember experiencing something in order to have experienced it or to be experiencing it (as a duplicate)).
Assume if MWI were true. You would be experiencing those many other worlds, but you (the Brent Meeker in this branch) can't recall those experiences of those other worlds.
It just trashes the concept of person, which it pretends to explain.
Science has shown that the particular matter and material are not important for personal identity.
That leaves little else aside from memories, to serve as a marker to preserve personal identity. Therefore many people people assume it must be the memories that are crucial to defining the person. But there are flaws with this. If you are concentrating very hard taking some test, it seems almost all your personal memories could be disconnected from you and you wouldn't notice. Who then is it that is taking the test? Also, consider that you were definitely alive and fully conscious when you were experiencing the 14th bite of your breakfast 296 days ago, but you probably have no memory of it. Who was it that was conscious of that moment?
Do you think you could be a person without memory (ever known someone with severe Alzheimer's?).
Yes I think so. Anyone who is conscious is a person and I don't see memories as a requirement for awareness. How do you define personhood?
A sentence that made sense up until "as you...".
Further, this theory makes makes fewer assumptions than the single-life theories. Those theories contain an additional assumption that there is some process of selection which led to you being born as you and no one else.
I was going to say "as Brent Meeker" but wanted my message to be general to other readers of my post.
It doesn't explain it.
What is your justification for adding this additional assumption when the theory itself explains why we can't recall the perspectives of other people?
Your brain is not physically wired to other people's brains, so why, when I ask Brent Meeker if he recalls experiencing what it is like to be me, should Brent Meeker answer yes? (Bear in mind from other examples memory is no guarantee of what one has or hasn't experienced. If you think you can show that one must have a memory of something to have experienced it, please provide some argument or proof.)
In fact it denies there are other people (thus violating Bruno's religion).
I'll allow Bruno to comment on whether he thinks a universal self contradicts CTM.
No useful purpose except making the theory useful.
It is just like the collapse postulate, which you are also fond of. It serves no useful purpose and needlessly complicates the theory.
Please explain how it does this.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
On 16 Jan 2013, at 07:15, Jason Resch wrote:On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:23 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 8:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote:"To be experiencing it as a duplicate (but not remember)" is just double-talk.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 5:15 PM, Jason Resch wrote:I love it how empirical contradiction is so easily dismissed.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/15/2013 7:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote:Then why do we find ourselves in a world where everyone has only life from their childhood to now?
All conscious states are experienced, even if everyone is truly immortal it does't mean we always have access to or are experiencing all our memories all the time. How much of your current life are you recalling at any given moment?
To answer your question, we are either original biological humans or someone else experiencing what it was like to be an original biological human. When this life ends the consciousness original biological humans ends, but it continues as the someone else who experienced that original biological human's life.
But as I understand your theory we are nothing but sequences of experiences - so if the sequence continues (and I don't know how you distinguish one continuation from a another)
I don't bother trying as I've realized it is futile. I've found only two workable definitions of "you" which don't lead to contradictions:
1) Each observer moment has its own unique experiencer.
2) All observer moments belong to the same experiencer.
The latter at least leads to useful decision theories (like why bother getting out of bed in the morning), while the former seems to lead to nihilism. I prefer the second one.
The theory that you are everyone is not falsified by our experience (the examples I gave above show that one don't need to remember experiencing something in order to have experienced it or to be experiencing it (as a duplicate)).
Assume if MWI were true. You would be experiencing those many other worlds, but you (the Brent Meeker in this branch) can't recall those experiences of those other worlds.
It just trashes the concept of person, which it pretends to explain.
Science has shown that the particular matter and material are not important for personal identity.That's a too quick and strong statement. It is just that science provides evidence for comp, but we cannot know if it is true. I guess you were just quick as I have no doubt you agree with this. OK? Comp might be false, and particular matter might play a role.I do agree with your point though.
Our understanding of cell metabolism is enough to show that we get a mostly new brain (new atoms) every few months.
And QM also shows the indistinguishability of particles and atoms of the same element.
So the evidence science has collected is quite strong on this point.
Jason--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> I could study anthropology or I could study literature or I could study history but I can't study theology because there is nothing there to study. There is no field of inquiry called "theology", there is only glop.
> This shows that you have not studied the field, which seems indeed pretty obvious.
> you take the "physicalist religion" for granted.
>> I once asked you if they study primary matter at CERN and you emphatically said no, so I conclude that whatever "primary matter" is it's a colossal bore.
> It is the natural ontology of the physicalism. It means notably that physics is the toold for studying what is.
You lost me here,
Bruno
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13
--
On 16 Jan 2013, at 16:34, Jason Resch wrote:
Yes it was worded too strongly. What I meant is there is no currently no widely supported theory of mind where the identity of matter is important to the identity of a person.I agree. Even Hamerov would agree, despite the low and quantum level. Only Penrose, but probably also Searle, would disagree, I guess. Perhaps Craig, and most believer in non comp.
I agree. Even Hamerov would agree, despite the low and quantum level. Only Penrose, but probably also Searle, would disagree, I guess. Perhaps Craig, and most believer in non comp.
We could ask one of the people who are made of a different kind of matter than human beings. While we are at it, we could ask them which arithmetic incantation will allow us to drink brine from the sea instead of fresh water. Shouldn't be a big deal... ;)
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:>> I could study anthropology or I could study literature or I could study history but I can't study theology because there is nothing there to study. There is no field of inquiry called "theology", there is only glop.> This shows that you have not studied the field, which seems indeed pretty obvious.
13 years of studying this useless bullshit is not enough? I'll bet I know more about the Bible than most Christians.
> you take the "physicalist religion" for granted.
Wow, calling a guy know for disliking religion religious, never heard that one before, at least I never head it before I was 12.
>> I once asked you if they study primary matter at CERN and you emphatically said no, so I conclude that whatever "primary matter" is it's a colossal bore.> It is the natural ontology of the physicalism. It means notably that physics is the toold for studying what is.
Then the study of "primary matter" is the study of what isn't, or to put it another way a colossal bore.
On 1/16/2013 7:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2013, at 23:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/15/2013 8:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2013, at 07:54, meekerdb wrote, to Jason:
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.
But that's just a semantic trick. The first-person perspective consciousness can still be finite. Just because "the end" isn't part of the experience, it doesn't follow that the sequence of experiences continues indefinitely. I've had my consciousness interrupted. There was no mathematical/logical necessity that it resume.
Of course. But if you assume either QM, or comp, there are.
Comp maybe. QM doesn't require that consciousness continue.
?What would it mean to observe anything if consciousness does not continue (locally)?
An "observation" in QM is just instantiating the value of a projection operator in a quasi-classical form. There is nothing prevent others people and instruments from observing things after I cease to.