Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2017, 03:49:30 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists  (Read 24438 times)
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
November 05, 2013, 09:42:13 PM
 #281

You are correct, we don't 'create' anything because everything always existed and has happened before us.  We are just channeling, changing and controlling, thereby, basically creating with our minds.

So, are we "creating" or are we just "channeling?" You can't have both? And if there is exactly zero factual corroborated and reproducible evidence for any of this, why is it relevant? I guess for you, you hope to be the very first person to actually have factual, corroborated, and reproducible evidence? I wonder what are the chances of that, since you'd be the first human (maybe second) to do this in 250,000 years.
It's very simple to understand when you understand what infinity means.  If the universe is infinite, everything has already happened infinitely and everything you can think of exists everywhere.

Yes. If the universe is infinite. But our universe is not. There was a beginning, and if it keep expanding, there will be an end, where all energy runs out (though we now have methods of creating logic gates - computers - that can work and process without energy, and thus if we actually survive until the heat death of the universe, we may be able to continue living as these self-contained machines... but I digress). There is a theory (or is it a hypothesis?) that there are an infinite number of other universes, and thus an infinite number of other possibilities. So yeah, that's true. But there is no evidence that we are able to percieve any of those other universes, or that we are in any way affect them. If they exist, it's more that we "flow" through them, taking different routes with every decision we make, while remaining in the universe we chose to stayon the path of.

Quote
We call it creating, though it's not really creating anything because you cannot create more than infinity.  But it's a good word.  We are conscious creators.

If it's not really creating anything, then it's not a good word. We would be conscious decision makers at most. Which is kind of a "no duh."

1508557770
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508557770

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508557770
Reply with quote  #2

1508557770
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508557770
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508557770

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508557770
Reply with quote  #2

1508557770
Report to moderator
1508557770
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508557770

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508557770
Reply with quote  #2

1508557770
Report to moderator
1508557770
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508557770

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508557770
Reply with quote  #2

1508557770
Report to moderator
dank
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


You cannot kill love


View Profile
November 05, 2013, 09:49:47 PM
 #282

You are correct, we don't 'create' anything because everything always existed and has happened before us.  We are just channeling, changing and controlling, thereby, basically creating with our minds.

So, are we "creating" or are we just "channeling?" You can't have both? And if there is exactly zero factual corroborated and reproducible evidence for any of this, why is it relevant? I guess for you, you hope to be the very first person to actually have factual, corroborated, and reproducible evidence? I wonder what are the chances of that, since you'd be the first human (maybe second) to do this in 250,000 years.
It's very simple to understand when you understand what infinity means.  If the universe is infinite, everything has already happened infinitely and everything you can think of exists everywhere.

Yes. If the universe is infinite. But our universe is not. There was a beginning, and if it keep expanding, there will be an end, where all energy runs out (though we now have methods of creating logic gates - computers - that can work and process without energy, and thus if we actually survive until the heat death of the universe, we may be able to continue living as these self-contained machines... but I digress). There is a theory (or is it a hypothesis?) that there are an infinite number of other universes, and thus an infinite number of other possibilities. So yeah, that's true. But there is no evidence that we are able to percieve any of those other universes, or that we are in any way affect them. If they exist, it's more that we "flow" through them, taking different routes with every decision we make, while remaining in the universe we chose to stayon the path of.

Quote
We call it creating, though it's not really creating anything because you cannot create more than infinity.  But it's a good word.  We are conscious creators.

If it's not really creating anything, then it's not a good word. We would be conscious decision makers at most. Which is kind of a "no duh."
No, it is a good word.  It just means we aren't creating from nothing, we are creating from something.

To the above statement, there are infinite alternate dimensions, it matters not if our universe is a finite bubble.  I have astral projected and seen another universe taking place in the same location as ours, the mountains were red and the creatures grey.  Everything exists everywhere.

13oZY8zzWEp48XZpEEi8zSkYJF5AWR2vXc DMhYmNzMnU2Avgu7sF3GSDybHumj8XH8V8
Currently seeking plot of land to host 1,000,000+ person music festival
Dankmusic - Hear the impossible, feel the impossible, be the impossible dankmusic.org dankcoin.org
interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
November 05, 2013, 10:53:57 PM
 #283



Quote
So, again why have two singularities, where you can have only one.

Where are you getting two singularities from? It was just one single quantum "pop."

The one is the emergence of physical universe, the other is the emergence of you. You have agreed, that there was no pre-existing idea of you 1 year before your birth in this universe, so your emergence in it is a singularity.

The inconsistency in your reasoning, is that you require (for no obvious reasons) first singularity (the universe) to occur first in order for second singularity (you) to follow. Singularity already means, that you cannot coherently explain how it occurs, therefore requiring something else as a prerequisite seems unfounded.

Yes, but based on previous discussions, Rassah is an epiphenomenalist and a monist. So even his "essence of being" is an intrinsic property of the particles that were merely rearranged in some fascinating chemical ways to form his body. So in that sense, there was no singularity around the time of his birth. At best, his brain is a complex machine, arranged especially so that it can leverage a lot of potential abilities that were already built into the particles making up our world.

Yes, I do remember that conversation in one of the Atlas threads from about a year ago or so. It is an important point to understand before we can move any further.

So, there are two options here, either we have per-existent idea of "you" before your birth or we have a singularity. I cannot see any way around it, no matter how certain belief system is called.

If the substance of "you" is a particular configuration of atoms waiting to arrange themselves in a certain way, then that's already a pre-existent idea of "you". Can we agree on that?

PS: when I say "you", readers should think about themselves and replace it with "I" for this argument to work properly.

So if you intuitively disagree with the above, you'd probably need another angle.


I see how it might be tricky to make the first step backwards, so maybe another angle is to make an explicit step forward first and then demonstrate how going back from there is at least possible.

In this regard, making step forward would be building a very realistic computer simulation, which would block person's current memory and perception of physical reality for the duration of the game session. Something like decent VR helmet with good response time for blocking physical reality and injection of some substance to temporarily block current memory would do the job. All this is real physical stuff from off-the-shelf components, so no imaginary fantasies here.

Then ask that person the same questions while in the game session and see how ridiculous the answers would sound. Something like: "how did you get here?" - "oh, I don't know, maybe I am just an arrangement of some bits in this place, or some quantum flop of energy...". It is very easy to see, that simulation itself didn't create that person (the actual physical player), but only altered the perception of reality for a while. By the time the player thought he was dead in the game, he woke up in his cozy chair with a great deal of surprise on his face.

This is place is no different.
interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
November 05, 2013, 11:27:00 PM
 #284

Yes, you can call it anything you want, even a Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's just a label or shortcut for "Creator of the Universe(s)", so that I don't have to repeat that whole phrase in the rest of the argument.

But it is important to substitute the definition back when we conclude the argument. Which is:
Creator of the Universe(s) exists in reality.

If you refuse the idea of creator at all, then you will face contradiction the minute you create something in your imagination...

Here is where it totally falls appart for me. I can't see how "creating something in your imagination" is actually creating anything at all. It's just imagination, which happens through a mechanical/physical process. If I change some electrons on a tiny slab of silicon, and the computer "imagines" the result as a picture of a house on a computer screen, the computer didn't actually "create" a house. It's just an asembly of electrons into a pattern that can be interpreted as a house. Same with our imagination - we aren't creating worlds, we are just rearranging electrons in a way that let our brains interpret them as a representation of something.

The experience of creating something in imagination is more immediate, than your interpretation of it as simply rearranging the electrons in the brain. So why do you prefer some very complex interpretation over the immediate experience? You can also create something in physical reality after you imagine it, don't you have a concept of a house with all those drawings before you go and build it?

Quote
Where are you getting two singularities from? It was just one single quantum "pop."

The one is the emergence of physical universe, the other is the emergence of you. You have agreed, that there was no pre-existing idea of you 1 year before your birth in this universe, so your emergence in it is a singularity.

But my being formed through chemical processes isn't a singularity. There was no pre-existing idea of my car 5 years ago, either, but it was put together from raw materials, and now here it is. I don't call that a singularity, I cann it a normal physical event.

But there is a clear distinction (for you) between chemical processes before your birth and after. So is there a particular chemical process that makes you who you are? Isn't that process a pre-existing idea of you then?

The car example is irrelevant to this discussion, as anything else you call yours, simply because for something to be yours you need to be you to begin with. Your car is not you, so it is not so interesting how it came to be. The funny thing is that according to this train of thought your brain also is not you. You need to go deeper, or should I say "outside" Smiley
interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 12:11:46 AM
 #285



If you refuse the idea of creator at all, then you will face contradiction the minute you create something in your imagination, like that "spontaneous quantum event" you mentioned. And by the way we didn't witness it, we reconstructed it in our imagination, based on some experimental data from the satelites, but there is no certainty, that this particular reconstruction is unique.
 

There are all kinds of crazy things happening on the quantum level.  Concepts that make sense to us on the macro level often have no meaning on the quantum level.  Even Feynman said no-one understands quantum physics.   So when it comes to the actual building blocks of reality, they don't make sense to us, they don't appeal to our common sense, they don't appeal to our instincts.

So saying the universe was created, however intuitive that may seem to us, may have no applicability at the quantum level.  

Our brains were evolved to understand how to avoid lions on the African plains.  If we can't see something, there was no reason for our brain to evolve to understand it.  Thus the things that we do understand is often because they are similar in some way to our everyday experiences.  eg. planets are just giant floating rocks.  Understanding that time is relative is a bit harder to visualise.  Quantum stuff, almost impossible.  We just know the equations work.

It could be that the universe has a perfectly rational reason for it's existence which is very difficult for us to process.  The "God created it" or "some being created it" thing?  Too simple, too human an idea and no explanation for how the God was created.  Which is why it was around before science.

Here you assume, that the quantum level is more fundamental than our perception of it.
However, the quantum level have clearly demonstrated that it is not independent from our observation of it and therefore is not a separate fundamental reality onto itself.

The atoms that make up our brains are equal citizens on that quantum level with other particles. So how can our brain give rise to our consciousness, if its constituents are dependent on how we look at it? Smiley

In other words, the brain is only a brain when we look at it.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 04:32:19 AM
 #286

So, there are two options here, either we have per-existent idea of "you" before your birth or we have a singularity. I cannot see any way around it, no matter how certain belief system is called.

If the substance of "you" is a particular configuration of atoms waiting to arrange themselves in a certain way, then that's already a pre-existent idea of "you". Can we agree on that?

I'm not sure. Saying they are waiting to kind of anthropomorphasizes this whole thing. I don't think atoms can wait, or feel anything, or have any ideas or thought processes, let alone of a future me. Can we just say that a proper set of circumstances just happened to align to bring those specific atoms together to form me? And would my being formed what you are calling the "singularity?" (Which still sounds like an extremely improper and over-sensationalized term for "just happened by chance").

Quote
In this regard, making step forward would be building a very realistic computer simulation, which would block person's current memory and perception of physical reality for the duration of the game session. Something like decent VR helmet with good response time for blocking physical reality and injection of some substance to temporarily block current memory would do the job. All this is real physical stuff from off-the-shelf components, so no imaginary fantasies here.

Then ask that person the same questions while in the game session and see how ridiculous the answers would sound. Something like: "how did you get here?" - "oh, I don't know, maybe I am just an arrangement of some bits in this place, or some quantum flop of energy...". It is very easy to see, that simulation itself didn't create that person (the actual physical player), but only altered the perception of reality for a while.

Let's pretend that the simulation is extremely good, even allowing this player to test his environment, but not allowing to give him any hints that he is in a simulation. Then, based on the tests this player has performed, he learned that the answer to the questions is most probably X. The question that arises then  is: Does it matter if the real answer to the question is actually Y, if everything the player believes he will experience, and the only thing he believes will ever have an influence on him, is X? Does Y even have any significance if there is no way for the player to test for Y? And if X is the only thing the player can test for and experience, can the "realty" for the player be Y, Z, A, B, C, or an infinite other possibilities, all having no bearing on his existence in the situation? (That alphabet being Christ, Zeus, Ra, Thor, or a slew of other "realities" we have come up with that actually have no bearing or significance on the world we experience).

Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 04:56:38 AM
 #287

The experience of creating something in imagination is more immediate, than your interpretation of it as simply rearranging the electrons in the brain. So why do you prefer some very complex interpretation over the immediate experience?

I don't follow. Imagining something takes eons when measured in picoseconds (it's relative), and our brains and imagination isn't actually all that fast. We can't even process visual information faster than at a few images a second, and it takes a while to reconstruct something like a house in our imagination (at least compared to how fast computers can do it now). So, I'm not sure what you mean by more immediate, in leu of it being slowed by the electrical and chemical limits of our wetware (brains).


Quote
You can also create something in physical reality after you imagine it, don't you have a concept of a house with all those drawings before you go and build it?

Yes, but that concept isn't a creation, is a concept. Like "cat" is a word that identifies a furry, sharp concept, not an actual creation of a feline. The only thing "cat" creates is some pixels on your screen, just as the only thing imagining a house creates is just some electrical "pixels" in your brain.

Quote
Quote
But my being formed through chemical processes isn't a singularity. There was no pre-existing idea of my car 5 years ago, either, but it was put together from raw materials, and now here it is. I don't call that a singularity, I cann it a normal physical event.

But there is a clear distinction (for you) between chemical processes before your birth and after. So is there a particular chemical process that makes you who you are? Isn't that process a pre-existing idea of you then?

I don't know if it's relevant, but for me, no. There was a period between my birth and the time my long-term memory developed (about 1 to 2 years of age) during which I don't remember any concept of "me." For others, yes, there is a clear distinction between the total lack of chemical processes before my conception, and a bundle of chemical processes that can be defined as me after conception. I have no idea what you mean by the "pre-existing idea" though. I don't know who would be holding and thinking that idea. It wasn't me or my parents.


Quote
The car example is irrelevant to this discussion, as anything else you call yours, simply because for something to be yours you need to be you to begin with. Your car is not you, so it is not so interesting how it came to be. The funny thing is that according to this train of thought your brain also is not you. You need to go deeper, or should I say "outside" Smiley

Sorry, I didn't mean to focus on the possessive "my" car. I was just using my car as an example. It's a car, and it's its own car. It is self containing as a single entity, that came to be after being assembled from various parts, but was not imagined, or existed as any sort of idea, until it was assembled. Just as I was and is before and after I was "assembled." As for the brain not you idea, that may prove rather difficult for those who believe as you do when we get to the point of being able to upload our consciousness into machines. Modern psychology says that "we" are not only our physical brains, but the rest of our bodies as well, limbs and all, and uploading ourselves into a disembodied system, or even a system with a radically different body (different proportions, senses, etc) could be such a radical change to our psyche that we would rapidly become seemingly totally different people/personalities, or even go mad. Those who believe their brains are not them may end up boldly and carelessly going straight into total insanity.

dank
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


You cannot kill love


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 05:08:59 AM
 #288

So, there are two options here, either we have per-existent idea of "you" before your birth or we have a singularity. I cannot see any way around it, no matter how certain belief system is called.

If the substance of "you" is a particular configuration of atoms waiting to arrange themselves in a certain way, then that's already a pre-existent idea of "you". Can we agree on that?

I'm not sure. Saying they are waiting to kind of anthropomorphasizes this whole thing. I don't think atoms can wait, or feel anything, or have any ideas or thought processes, let alone of a future me. Can we just say that a proper set of circumstances just happened to align to bring those specific atoms together to form me? And would my being formed what you are calling the "singularity?" (Which still sounds like an extremely improper and over-sensationalized term for "just happened by chance").

Quote
In this regard, making step forward would be building a very realistic computer simulation, which would block person's current memory and perception of physical reality for the duration of the game session. Something like decent VR helmet with good response time for blocking physical reality and injection of some substance to temporarily block current memory would do the job. All this is real physical stuff from off-the-shelf components, so no imaginary fantasies here.

Then ask that person the same questions while in the game session and see how ridiculous the answers would sound. Something like: "how did you get here?" - "oh, I don't know, maybe I am just an arrangement of some bits in this place, or some quantum flop of energy...". It is very easy to see, that simulation itself didn't create that person (the actual physical player), but only altered the perception of reality for a while.

Let's pretend that the simulation is extremely good, even allowing this player to test his environment, but not allowing to give him any hints that he is in a simulation. Then, based on the tests this player has performed, he learned that the answer to the questions is most probably X. The question that arises then  is: Does it matter if the real answer to the question is actually Y, if everything the player believes he will experience, and the only thing he believes will ever have an influence on him is X? Does Y even have any significance is there is no way for the player to test for Y? And if X is the only thing the player can test for and experience, can the "realty" for the player be Y, Z, A, B, C, or an infinite other possibilities, all having no bearing on his existence in the situation? (That alphabet being Christ, Zeus, Ra, Thor, or a slew of other "realities" we have come up with that actually have no bearing or significance on the world we experience).
So you admit, there's a variable Y.  It seems you have solved the equation.  They clearly have a bearing over existence, for you are speaking of it.

13oZY8zzWEp48XZpEEi8zSkYJF5AWR2vXc DMhYmNzMnU2Avgu7sF3GSDybHumj8XH8V8
Currently seeking plot of land to host 1,000,000+ person music festival
Dankmusic - Hear the impossible, feel the impossible, be the impossible dankmusic.org dankcoin.org
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 05:09:24 AM
 #289

Here you assume, that the quantum level is more fundamental than our perception of it.
However, the quantum level have clearly demonstrated that it is not independent from our observation of it and therefore is not a separate fundamental reality onto itself.

The atoms that make up our brains are equal citizens on that quantum level with other particles. So how can our brain give rise to our consciousness, if its constituents are dependent on how we look at it? Smiley

In other words, the brain is only a brain when we look at it.

I think you may be misunderstanding what quantum means. It doesn't mean that quantum level exists when we observe it, and doesn't exist when we don't. It always exists. The principle of it being dependent on our observation only says that HOW we end up observing it determines how it may present itself. Simplest example is lightmbeing wave v.s particle. On quantum level, if we observe light and test it to see if it is a wave, we will observe it as a wave, and if we try to observe it as a particle, we will see it as a particle. However, that light will continue to exist regardless of whether we observe it. On a macro scale, this is like observing the temperature of a glass of water with a big thermometer. If we insert the thermometer into the glass to get a temperature reading, we won't be getting the actual temperature, but the temperature affected by our observation, which is the combination of the temperature of the water and the added temperature of the thermometer. The final temperature is not independent of our observation, but there would still be a temperature even if we didn't observe it.
Didn't they cover this stuff in your school? (It was in one of my high school classes)

So, with regards to our consciousness and brains, this doesn't even really apply, since they are both contained in the same system. You are not the thermometer (consciousness) observing the water (brain), you are the water itself. Or you could say you are a glass of water with a thermometer already in it.

Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 05:18:02 AM
 #290

Let's pretend that the simulation is extremely good, even allowing this player to test his environment, but not allowing to give him any hints that he is in a simulation. Then, based on the tests this player has performed, he learned that the answer to the questions is most probably X. The question that arises then  is: Does it matter if the real answer to the question is actually Y, if everything the player believes he will experience, and the only thing he believes will ever have an influence on him is X? Does Y even have any significance is there is no way for the player to test for Y? And if X is the only thing the player can test for and experience, can the "realty" for the player be Y, Z, A, B, C, or an infinite other possibilities, all having no bearing on his existence in the situation? (That alphabet being Christ, Zeus, Ra, Thor, or a slew of other "realities" we have come up with that actually have no bearing or significance on the world we experience).
So you admit, there's a variable Y.  It seems you have solved the equation.  They clearly have a bearing over existence, for you are speaking of it.

I see something even this basic went over your head. No, dank, I merely point out that the variable Y is irrelevant. There could be Y, or Z, or anything, but if it is not relevant to our world, it is not relevant period. Also, claiming Y means you have to claim an infinite other things, too, since Y is no more important than everything else (but is infinitely LESS important than the actually-experienced X).
The only bearing on existence I am giving Y by speaking about it is to point out that it should not be taken into consideration at all, and should be ignored, becaise it has no bearing over existence. Yes, ironically, it is important to tell people that they should not waste time, energy, and resources (and kill each other in the process) on things that have absolutely no bearing or influence on their life.

dank
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


You cannot kill love


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 06:41:31 AM
 #291

Here you assume, that the quantum level is more fundamental than our perception of it.
However, the quantum level have clearly demonstrated that it is not independent from our observation of it and therefore is not a separate fundamental reality onto itself.

The atoms that make up our brains are equal citizens on that quantum level with other particles. So how can our brain give rise to our consciousness, if its constituents are dependent on how we look at it? Smiley

In other words, the brain is only a brain when we look at it.

I think you may be misunderstanding what quantum means. It doesn't mean that quantum level exists when we observe it, and doesn't exist when we don't. It always exists. The principle of it being dependent on our observation only says that HOW we end up observing it determines how it may present itself. Simplest example is lightmbeing wave v.s particle. On quantum level, if we observe light and test it to see if it is a wave, we will observe it as a wave, and if we try to observe it as a particle, we will see it as a particle. However, that light will continue to exist regardless of whether we observe it. On a macro scale, this is like observing the temperature of a glass of water with a big thermometer. If we insert the thermometer into the glass to get a temperature reading, we won't be getting the actual temperature, but the temperature affected by our observation, which is the combination of the temperature of the water and the added temperature of the thermometer. The final temperature is not independent of our observation, but there would still be a temperature even if we didn't observe it.
Didn't they cover this stuff in your school? (It was in one of my high school classes)

So, with regards to our consciousness and brains, this doesn't even really apply, since they are both contained in the same system. You are not the thermometer (consciousness) observing the water (brain), you are the water itself. Or you could say you are a glass of water with a thermometer already in it.
We are the thermometer looking through the glass of water.

Let's pretend that the simulation is extremely good, even allowing this player to test his environment, but not allowing to give him any hints that he is in a simulation. Then, based on the tests this player has performed, he learned that the answer to the questions is most probably X. The question that arises then  is: Does it matter if the real answer to the question is actually Y, if everything the player believes he will experience, and the only thing he believes will ever have an influence on him is X? Does Y even have any significance is there is no way for the player to test for Y? And if X is the only thing the player can test for and experience, can the "realty" for the player be Y, Z, A, B, C, or an infinite other possibilities, all having no bearing on his existence in the situation? (That alphabet being Christ, Zeus, Ra, Thor, or a slew of other "realities" we have come up with that actually have no bearing or significance on the world we experience).
So you admit, there's a variable Y.  It seems you have solved the equation.  They clearly have a bearing over existence, for you are speaking of it.

I see something even this basic went over your head. No, dank, I merely point out that the variable Y is irrelevant. There could be Y, or Z, or anything, but if it is not relevant to our world, it is not relevant period. Also, claiming Y means you have to claim an infinite other things, too, since Y is no more important than everything else (but is infinitely LESS important than the actually-experienced X).
The only bearing on existence I am giving Y by speaking about it is to point out that it should not be taken into consideration at all, and should be ignored, becaise it has no bearing over existence. Yes, ironically, it is important to tell people that they should not waste time, energy, and resources (and kill each other in the process) on things that have absolutely no bearing or influence on their life.
So Y = god = consciousness = love

Consciousness and love are not relevant to your world?  They are to others, so they exist.

And yes, there are infinite things to fill that variable.

13oZY8zzWEp48XZpEEi8zSkYJF5AWR2vXc DMhYmNzMnU2Avgu7sF3GSDybHumj8XH8V8
Currently seeking plot of land to host 1,000,000+ person music festival
Dankmusic - Hear the impossible, feel the impossible, be the impossible dankmusic.org dankcoin.org
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 07:01:53 AM
 #292

We are the thermometer looking through the glass of water.

Um.. Yes, if by "thermometer" you mean us, and "water" you mean the universe. Though some of us don't understand what effect we have as we look, and either believe we have no effect, or ascribe WAY WAY WAY more effect than we actually have. And no if by "thermometer" you mean consciousness and by "water" you mean our brain. Yes, conscious thought physically alters the brain, but consciousness doesn't percieve the brain (which would be the quantum observation thing), but rather exists from it.

Quote
So Y = god = consciousness = love

Also, Y = a merry fairy princes = hunger = foot
Also, Y = jibba-jabba = fool = pitty the
Y is anything, and anything is undefined, and thus meaningless.

Quote
Consciousness and love are not relevant to your world?  They are to others, so they exist.

Consciousness and love from Y, meaning consciousness and love from someone I don't know and don't have a hope of ever knowing are completely irrelevant, yes. They should be completely irrelevant to everyone else, too. Is the dust bunny under my bed being "conscious" and loving you with all its filth relevant to you?
The only consciousness and love that matter is that which comes from X, since that is the only consciousness and love that we can actually feel and experience.

Also, you are really overusing the word love. If you just throw it around, you are pretty much making it nothing but a cheap statement. Love is a feeling expressed thorough action. I don't care if you love anyone, or if anyone loves anyone else, as their feelings are worth exactly shit if they do nothing to actually show it. You have a tendency to throw around big "important" terms like "god" and "love" as if you hope they will have some meaning in-and-of themselves. Sorry to break it to you, but they don't. Without action, work, evidence, or any effect on the people you are throwing them at, all they are are just funny sounds created by wind that you blow while you contort your face into funny shapes.

Vigil
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 07:12:17 AM
 #293

Ultimately this proof rests on whether human beings can truly understand what God is and that its concept cannot be derived simply as an extension or ultimate regression of something which exists in fact. In which case, God doesn't really exist in your mind, only some superficial idea you are generically referring to as God. But obviously, humans can't completely conceive of God, or maybe they can...
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2013, 07:20:31 AM
 #294

You are correct, we don't 'create' anything because everything always existed and has happened before us.  We are just channeling, changing and controlling, thereby, basically creating with our minds.

So, are we "creating" or are we just "channeling?" You can't have both? And if there is exactly zero factual corroborated and reproducible evidence for any of this, why is it relevant? I guess for you, you hope to be the very first person to actually have factual, corroborated, and reproducible evidence? I wonder what are the chances of that, since you'd be the first human (maybe second) to do this in 250,000 years.
It's very simple to understand when you understand what infinity means.  If the universe is infinite, everything has already happened infinitely and everything you can think of exists everywhere.

We call it creating, though it's not really creating anything because you cannot create more than infinity.  But it's a good word.  We are conscious creators.

Like in Zelazny's Amber Chronicles?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Amber
Perhaps this one has walked the Logrus

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 06, 2013, 07:35:48 AM
 #295

Ultimately this proof rests on whether human beings can truly understand what God is and that its concept cannot be derived simply as an extension or ultimate regression of something which exists in fact. In which case, God doesn't really exist in your mind, only some superficial idea you are generically referring to as God. But obviously, humans can't completely conceive of God, or maybe they can...

Ineffable

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
interlagos
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 497


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 02:15:29 PM
 #296

So, there are two options here, either we have per-existent idea of "you" before your birth or we have a singularity. I cannot see any way around it, no matter how certain belief system is called.

If the substance of "you" is a particular configuration of atoms waiting to arrange themselves in a certain way, then that's already a pre-existent idea of "you". Can we agree on that?

I'm not sure. Saying they are waiting to kind of anthropomorphasizes this whole thing. I don't think atoms can wait, or feel anything, or have any ideas or thought processes, let alone of a future me. Can we just say that a proper set of circumstances just happened to align to bring those specific atoms together to form me? And would my being formed what you are calling the "singularity?" (Which still sounds like an extremely improper and over-sensationalized term for "just happened by chance").

Quote
In this regard, making step forward would be building a very realistic computer simulation, which would block person's current memory and perception of physical reality for the duration of the game session. Something like decent VR helmet with good response time for blocking physical reality and injection of some substance to temporarily block current memory would do the job. All this is real physical stuff from off-the-shelf components, so no imaginary fantasies here.

Then ask that person the same questions while in the game session and see how ridiculous the answers would sound. Something like: "how did you get here?" - "oh, I don't know, maybe I am just an arrangement of some bits in this place, or some quantum flop of energy...". It is very easy to see, that simulation itself didn't create that person (the actual physical player), but only altered the perception of reality for a while.

Let's pretend that the simulation is extremely good, even allowing this player to test his environment, but not allowing to give him any hints that he is in a simulation. Then, based on the tests this player has performed, he learned that the answer to the questions is most probably X. The question that arises then  is: Does it matter if the real answer to the question is actually Y, if everything the player believes he will experience, and the only thing he believes will ever have an influence on him, is X? Does Y even have any significance if there is no way for the player to test for Y? And if X is the only thing the player can test for and experience, can the "realty" for the player be Y, Z, A, B, C, or an infinite other possibilities, all having no bearing on his existence in the situation? (That alphabet being Christ, Zeus, Ra, Thor, or a slew of other "realities" we have come up with that actually have no bearing or significance on the world we experience).

By reading your responses, I just realized that there is another answer to the question "Who am I?".
And that answer is "I just don't wanna know".

I do appreciate the persistence with which you defend your position and acknowledge it just as valid as any other. Arguing any further might not be of much value, as the meaning we put behind words starts to diverge rapidly at this stage. I wonder how people can agree on anything at all, if everyone understands something different for the words they use. Was there meaning or the word first? Or are they just two inseparable parts of the same one thing, a living paradox, where none can get the ultimate edge of another?

I agree that you are inseparable from your experience, including the experience of living in a Universe, be it a simulation, a "real" thing or just a dream. In that sense, "It is You and You are It" and "We are all One and the Same".

As a compensation for the time and effort spent on this discussion by many, I would like to suggest watching two wonderful movies, that the electrons in our brains have spontaneously created "by chance" Smiley

"The Game" (1997) with Michael Douglas
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119174/

"The Truman Show" (1998) with Jim Carrey
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/

Have fun! Smiley
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 02:48:27 PM
 #297

By reading your responses, I just realized that there is another answer to the question "Who am I?".
And that answer is "I just don't wanna know".

I thought about this, and, you may be right in some sense, but I prefer to think of it as "I don't want to jump to any conclusions until I'm sure."

Thanks for the discussion though. Made me really thing about my stance and place in the universe (plus forced me to do some research)

superresistant
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
November 06, 2013, 03:07:53 PM
 #298


Time is an illusion, there is no such thing as linear time. Time a fractioned into quantum of time.

Nothing prove that quantum of time are put in order. It is our consciousness that create the order and the illusion of linear time.

Your consciousness exist in any quantum of time.

Nothing prove that consciousness is dependant on the material existence of the brain.

Therefore your consciousness exist before and after your material existence.




Here's my bag so you don't ask : Bitcoin, tenX, iexec, byteball and pepecash
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 03:38:29 PM
 #299

Nothing prove that consciousness is dependant on the material existence of the brain.

Therefore your consciousness exist before and after your material existence.

What about the very simple test of: brain on = you're conscious, brain off = you're uncoonscious, brain on = you're conscious again. Such as what we do when we unduce coma or people go into coma due to brain trauma, or when people go braindead for a while and then come back from it? If I was to see a light being on, flipped a switch and saw it go off, then flipped the switch and see it come on again, the conclusion I would make is that the switch controls the light, not that the light exists outside of the realm of the switch, and simply goes away somewhere else when I flip the switch. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any of that?

kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 06, 2013, 04:29:04 PM
 #300

Nothing prove that consciousness is dependant on the material existence of the brain.

Therefore your consciousness exist before and after your material existence.

What about the very simple test of: brain on = you're conscious, brain off = you're uncoonscious, brain on = you're conscious again. Such as what we do when we unduce coma or people go into coma due to brain trauma, or when people go braindead for a while and then come back from it? If I was to see a light being on, flipped a switch and saw it go off, then flipped the switch and see it come on again, the conclusion I would make is that the switch controls the light, not that the light exists outside of the realm of the switch, and simply goes away somewhere else when I flip the switch. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any of that?
that argument is only applicable for human(or otherwise biological living thing) consciousness, not for consciousness in general.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!