|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 15, 2017 16:22:02 GMT
1. How can you state that like it's fact? Nobody knows what happens before we enter these vessels.. for all you know we line up and the people choosing the bodies that will suffer the most are like people who choose to go on the most scary amusement park rides. 2. Okay. IMO searching out the mystical is all there is once a person learns that materialism is a dead end. 3. "But you can't really extend that to cases where someone else's wellbeing is on the line." From my perspective any suffering here is a temporary symptom of the flesh. The children dying in Africa are equally as important as the raindrop falling into the ocean. You are a good person to feel so strongly the pains of others. 1. I state that based on all the evidence. If humans have pre-existing 'souls' which choose which body to enter, then what is the soul made of, and what causes the soul to make the choices that it does? If you've ever known anyone with Alzheimer's disease (my grandmother developed advanced Alzheimer's), then you'll notice that their brain will atrophy to a certain point where all sense of self will be lost. They'll no longer have any recognisable traces of their old personality, and won't even recognise members of their own family. So if there is anything else to what gives us our personality, then it seems to hide itself in brains that either aren't fully developed, or are injured or decayed. 2. I've never encountered that dead end. Materialism may not be satisfying for some, but I don't see how it's even possible for some kind of immaterial spirit to exist, given that something would have to cause that spirit to have the nature that it has. 3. The one saving grace is that it's all temporary, unless we find out that we're actually simulated minds being tortured for eternity by Roko's Basilisk, or that the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum physics is correct and once our consciousness dies in this universe, it diverts off into a parallel universe in which we don't die. But without invoking some kind of unprovable notion of God, all we can really say is that it appears to be a futile, harmful and unnecessary exercise, that wouldn't likely wouldn't pass an university ethics committee if it were proposed as an experiment. And thank you for the compliment. 1. Please share this evidence with others. As I understand it, nobody has evidence about where we were before we were born or where we go after we die. If an atheist had such evidence, there would be no organized religions. If anyone in any single organized religion had evidence that theirs was the true path, there would be no other religions. The 'Great Mystery' is just that, a mystery. I see your worldview as pessimistic.. I would need HARD evidence to change my worldview from an optimistic one to a pessimistic one. 2. You will. In fact, I could make the argument that your 'Nothing here matters, it's all meaningless suffering' is the end product of a materialistic worldview and that you have demonstrated it is a philosophical dead end. 3. Looks like your worldview is summed up by you looking forward not existing anymore. Hard to see how you can argue that from any positive mental health perspective. Sorry to see that from your perspective, the beauty and joy isn't worth the necessary ugliness and suffering. Good news, you'll find out someday. Many people who try Ayahuasca are convinced in some form of afterlife after we die, you could seek that out if 'Nothing matters it's all junk' stops working for you. (But since you already resent being alive, it's hard to see how much less it could work for you.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 17:31:56 GMT
1. I state that based on all the evidence. If humans have pre-existing 'souls' which choose which body to enter, then what is the soul made of, and what causes the soul to make the choices that it does? If you've ever known anyone with Alzheimer's disease (my grandmother developed advanced Alzheimer's), then you'll notice that their brain will atrophy to a certain point where all sense of self will be lost. They'll no longer have any recognisable traces of their old personality, and won't even recognise members of their own family. So if there is anything else to what gives us our personality, then it seems to hide itself in brains that either aren't fully developed, or are injured or decayed. 2. I've never encountered that dead end. Materialism may not be satisfying for some, but I don't see how it's even possible for some kind of immaterial spirit to exist, given that something would have to cause that spirit to have the nature that it has. 3. The one saving grace is that it's all temporary, unless we find out that we're actually simulated minds being tortured for eternity by Roko's Basilisk, or that the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum physics is correct and once our consciousness dies in this universe, it diverts off into a parallel universe in which we don't die. But without invoking some kind of unprovable notion of God, all we can really say is that it appears to be a futile, harmful and unnecessary exercise, that wouldn't likely wouldn't pass an university ethics committee if it were proposed as an experiment. And thank you for the compliment. 1. Please share this evidence with others. As I understand it, nobody has evidence about where we were before we were born or where we go after we die. If an atheist had such evidence, there would be no organized religions. If anyone in any single organized religion had evidence that theirs was the true path, there would be no other religions. The 'Great Mystery' is just that, a mystery. I see your worldview as pessimistic.. I would need HARD evidence to change my worldview from an optimistic one to a pessimistic one. 2. You will. In fact, I could make the argument that your 'Nothing here matters, it's all meaningless suffering' is the end product of a materialistic worldview and that you have demonstrated it is a philosophical dead end. 3. Looks like your worldview is summed up by you looking forward not existing anymore. Hard to see how you can argue that from any positive mental health perspective. Sorry to see that from your perspective, the beauty and joy isn't worth the necessary ugliness and suffering. Good news, you'll find out someday. Many people who try Ayahuasca are convinced in some form of afterlife after we die, you could seek that out if 'Nothing matters it's all junk' stops working for you. (But since you already resent being alive, it's hard to see how much less it could work for you.) 1.The evidence that we exist only in our brains is all around us. Like the Alzheimer's example that I used. Why do people lose their identity when their brain decays, if there is in fact something more to their identity than that which is produced by their brain. I know that my view is pessimistic, and most people are hard-wired for optimism. 2. My philosophy is far from nihilistic, because at the centre of it is the idea that suffering is important. It holds that conscious experience is the only source of value in the universe, and that negative value states ought to be prevented. And just because you don't find it satisfying doesn't make it a "philosophical dead end". There's no law of nature which dictates that the truth has to be emotionally appealing. 3. This is an ad hominem. The ideas that I am presenting needn't be rooted in any kind of 'negative mental health perspective', because that implies that being oblivious to the intractable and vexatious issue of conscious suffering is a pre-requisite for having good mental health. I admit that people who are depressed or mentally ill are more likely to be antinatalists than those with good mental health; but that's because if you're the one getting all the breaks, then you are less likely perceive the cycle of nature as being 'broken', much less look for the reasons why it's broken. But antinatalism is being embraced by an increasing number of atheist intellectuals who enjoy all of the superficial pleasures that life has to offer, and are in no haste to get to their grave. Personally, I would say that I'm suffering, but not intolerably so. If there has to be some combination of beauty and ugliness, then I choose the combination that maximises beauty and minimises ugliness. But without conscious experiencers, there would be neither beauty nor ugliness, nor any need or desire for these concepts. I wouldn't choose an unfair lottery wherein beauty is bestowed upon those privileged by superior luck, and ugliness for those who were cursed with misfortune. A coherent and sensible philosophy doesn't have to be one that fills us with all sorts of positive vibes. If that were the case, then lots of different mutually exclusive philosophies would be equally correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2017 17:58:47 GMT
you're always depressed.
|
|
deeznutz
Sophomore
@deeznutz
Posts: 561
Likes: 92
|
Post by deeznutz on Dec 15, 2017 18:09:18 GMT
This site prob won't help you sorry
|
|
deeznutz
Sophomore
@deeznutz
Posts: 561
Likes: 92
|
Post by deeznutz on Dec 15, 2017 18:10:01 GMT
This site prob won't help you sorry
|
|
deeznutz
Sophomore
@deeznutz
Posts: 561
Likes: 92
|
Post by deeznutz on Dec 15, 2017 18:10:16 GMT
This site prob won't help you sorry
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 19:37:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 15, 2017 19:42:10 GMT
tpfkar I certainly wish that my parents hadn't created me; but I know that 'free will' is an illusion and they probably hadn't thought of having children as being a selfish and risky endeavour whereby they were gambling with someone else's wellbeing. It is an illusion yet you sincerely furiously "choose" to try to convince other people to "choose" differently, all the while straight-faced holding that you have no real "choice". The point of existence is the experience. No Objective God exists to consecrate your moral imperative of Purity. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2017 7:27:33 GMT
tpfkar I certainly wish that my parents hadn't created me; but I know that 'free will' is an illusion and they probably hadn't thought of having children as being a selfish and risky endeavour whereby they were gambling with someone else's wellbeing. It is an illusion yet you sincerely furiously "choose" to try to convince other people to "choose" differently, all the while straight-faced holding that you have no real "choice". The point of existence is the experience. No Objective God exists to consecrate your moral imperative of Purity. And if society wants the fairest possible state of affairs, that would mean no humans and no society."No free will" =/= "no causal factors". You're the one who thinks that human behaviour operates uninfluenced by causal factors. Causal factors include the beliefs of other conscious minds, which are themselves caused. Playing a causal role in you changing your mind does not imply that I think that I'm subverting causality, it means that I think that I'm being part of causality. A universe without conscious experience would not be one that is bereft of conscious experience. The experience is an interesting diversion for those who have already been imposed upon. But there's no need nor justification to visit the imposition on otherwise, in the knowledge that the experience may be very harmful.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 16, 2017 8:04:29 GMT
tpfkar "No free will" =/= "no causal factors". You're the one who thinks that human behaviour operates uninfluenced by causal factors. Causal factors include the beliefs of other conscious minds, which are themselves caused. Playing a causal role in you changing your mind does not imply that I think that I'm subverting causality, it means that I think that I'm being part of causality. A universe without conscious experience would not be one that is bereft of conscious experience. The experience is an interesting diversion for those who have already been imposed upon. But there's no need nor justification to visit the imposition on otherwise, in the knowledge that the experience may be very harmful. You're ever the casual liar in your quest. I've never said any such thing. As I've posted many times, nothing is not influenced by cause and effect. We're just in there with it all, and are far from explaining what consciousness even is, much less how it actually works. And you can't escape the utter incoherency of "believing" you have no choice whatsoever and yet "choose" to frantically get others to "choose" to do something that they couldn't possibly do any differently regardless of what you in your shattered thinking think you do/don't do, or at the very least recognize the great ironic comedy of how the robot god is making you act in such shattered manners. And the universe doesn't want nor need nor feel anything. Not even any desire or inclination for your morbid religious homicidal purity. Nobody's been imposed upon, extant people have been given the superior state of an easily discarded option as opposed to none. The "experience" just is. Not objectively "harmful", although some highly irrational lugubrious find nearly all things so. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2017 8:52:24 GMT
tpfkar "No free will" =/= "no causal factors". You're the one who thinks that human behaviour operates uninfluenced by causal factors. Causal factors include the beliefs of other conscious minds, which are themselves caused. Playing a causal role in you changing your mind does not imply that I think that I'm subverting causality, it means that I think that I'm being part of causality. A universe without conscious experience would not be one that is bereft of conscious experience. The experience is an interesting diversion for those who have already been imposed upon. But there's no need nor justification to visit the imposition on otherwise, in the knowledge that the experience may be very harmful. You're ever the casual liar in your quest. I've never said any such thing. As I've posted many times, nothing is not influenced by cause and effect. We're just in there with it all, and are far from explaining what consciousness even is, much less how it actually works. And you can't escape the utter incoherency of "believing" you have no choice whatsoever and yet "choose" to frantically get others to "choose" to do something that they couldn't possibly do any differently regardless of what you in your shattered thinking think you do/don't do, or at the very least recognize the great ironic comedy of how the robot god is making you act in such shattered manners. And the universe doesn't want nor need nor feel anything. Not even any desire or inclination for your morbid religious homicidal purity. Nobody's been imposed upon, extant people have been given the superior state of an easily discarded option as opposed to none. The "experience" just is. Not objectively "harmful", although some highly irrational lugubrious find nearly all things so. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****". You believe that there is some kind of ghost in the machine which can shut out cause and effect. Some kind of extra-deterministic factor that enables an indivisible self to override all determining factors. If you believed that conscious decisions were anything other than strictly determined by forces beyond the control of the person in whose brain the decisions were being made, then at most, there would be a debate about semantics. I don't expect to make anyone believe anything different than what they're pre-determined to believe; but I do not know what, if any effect, my persuasion will have on them. So you may be a fervent antinatalist 10 years from now, for all I know, and having these discussions with me may be what moves you to that position. In a deterministic universe, people do change their minds due to deterministic forces. There's nothing in what I am stating that implies that everyone is stuck with rigid and unchanging beliefs because they don't possess this ineffable "free will". I couldn't have been an antinatalist 10 years ago, because at that point of time, the causal factors which determined my opinions were not determining that I would be an antinatalist. That doesn't mean that I needed extra-deterministic factors (in the form of this nebulous concept 'free will') to change my opinion on something. It would only be futile to try and persuade people to have an opinion other than the one that they currently hold, if I knew in advance what the eventual outcome would be. And people who are born have been imposed upon because their parents believed that the (unneeded) benefit that they expected the child to accrue would be worth the risks and harms to which they'd be exposed.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 16, 2017 8:55:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2017 9:03:07 GMT
An organism's capacity to suffer is the only source of value in the universe.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 16, 2017 9:10:00 GMT
tpfkar You're ever the casual liar in your quest. I've never said any such thing. As I've posted many times, nothing is not influenced by cause and effect. We're just in there with it all, and are far from explaining what consciousness even is, much less how it actually works. And you can't escape the utter incoherency of "believing" you have no choice whatsoever and yet "choose" to frantically get others to "choose" to do something that they couldn't possibly do any differently regardless of what you in your shattered thinking think you do/don't do, or at the very least recognize the great ironic comedy of how the robot god is making you act in such shattered manners. And the universe doesn't want nor need nor feel anything. Not even any desire or inclination for your morbid religious homicidal purity. Nobody's been imposed upon, extant people have been given the superior state of an easily discarded option as opposed to none. The "experience" just is. Not objectively "harmful", although some highly irrational lugubrious find nearly all things so. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****". You believe that there is some kind of ghost in the machine which can shut out cause and effect. Some kind of extra-deterministic factor that enables an indivisible self to override all determining factors. If you believed that conscious decisions were anything other than strictly determined by forces beyond the control of the person in whose brain the decisions were being made, then at most, there would be a debate about semantics. I don't expect to make anyone believe anything different than what they're pre-determined to believe; but I do not know what, if any effect, my persuasion will have on them. So you may be a fervent antinatalist 10 years from now, for all I know, and having these discussions with me may be what moves you to that position. In a deterministic universe, people do change their minds due to deterministic forces. There's nothing in what I am stating that implies that everyone is stuck with rigid and unchanging beliefs because they don't possess this ineffable "free will". I couldn't have been an antinatalist 10 years ago, because at that point of time, the causal factors which determined my opinions were not determining that I would be an antinatalist. That doesn't mean that I needed extra-deterministic factors (in the form of this nebulous concept 'free will') to change my opinion on something. It would only be futile to try and persuade people to have an opinion other than the one that they currently hold, if I knew in advance what the eventual outcome would be. And people who are born have been imposed upon because their parents believed that the (unneeded) benefit that they expected the child to accrue would be worth the risks and harms to which they'd be exposed. No, that's what you "believe", a "ghost of religious purity". I understand we have the evidence of our experience, that we have a less than childlike understanding of the workings of consciousness or at this point even what it is, no ax to grind, and a capability to recognize patent, comical incoherency of choosing to get people to choose to change their ways while simultaneously holding that choice does not exist. How would they be any different / act any differently if you did nothing? I understand we don't really know at this moment and am willing to wait on the science, but that even in this unsettled state that shattered thinking is shattered thinking. The kind of shattered thinking that leads to the psychopathic wish for Trump to nuke the world. People who are born are given the great superior position of getting to choose to ride this blast or in vanishingly small relative numbers to exit the stage. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2017 9:20:00 GMT
tpfkar You believe that there is some kind of ghost in the machine which can shut out cause and effect. Some kind of extra-deterministic factor that enables an indivisible self to override all determining factors. If you believed that conscious decisions were anything other than strictly determined by forces beyond the control of the person in whose brain the decisions were being made, then at most, there would be a debate about semantics. I don't expect to make anyone believe anything different than what they're pre-determined to believe; but I do not know what, if any effect, my persuasion will have on them. So you may be a fervent antinatalist 10 years from now, for all I know, and having these discussions with me may be what moves you to that position. In a deterministic universe, people do change their minds due to deterministic forces. There's nothing in what I am stating that implies that everyone is stuck with rigid and unchanging beliefs because they don't possess this ineffable "free will". I couldn't have been an antinatalist 10 years ago, because at that point of time, the causal factors which determined my opinions were not determining that I would be an antinatalist. That doesn't mean that I needed extra-deterministic factors (in the form of this nebulous concept 'free will') to change my opinion on something. It would only be futile to try and persuade people to have an opinion other than the one that they currently hold, if I knew in advance what the eventual outcome would be. And people who are born have been imposed upon because their parents believed that the (unneeded) benefit that they expected the child to accrue would be worth the risks and harms to which they'd be exposed. No, that's what you "believe", a "ghost of religious purity". I understand we have the evidence of our experience, that we have a less than childlike understanding of the workings of consciousness or at this point even what it is, no ax to grind, and a capability to recognize patent, comical incoherency of choosing to get people to choose to change their ways while simultaneously holding that choice does not exist. How would they be any different / act any differently if you did nothing? I understand we don't really know at this moment and am willing to wait on the science, but that even in this unsettled state that shattered thinking is shattered thinking. The kind of shattered thinking that leads to the psychopathic wish for Trump to nuke the world. People who are born are given the great superior position of getting to choose to ride this blast or in vanishingly small relative numbers to exit the stage. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The fact that people can change their opinion after exposure to new information is not evidence of free will. It's evidence for determinism. If anything, the world in which nobody ever changed their opinion regardless of what new information that they were exposed to would be better evidence in favour of free will.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 16, 2017 9:20:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 16, 2017 9:24:39 GMT
tpfkar No, that's what you "believe", a "ghost of religious purity". I understand we have the evidence of our experience, that we have a less than childlike understanding of the workings of consciousness or at this point even what it is, no ax to grind, and a capability to recognize patent, comical incoherency of choosing to get people to choose to change their ways while simultaneously holding that choice does not exist. How would they be any different / act any differently if you did nothing? I understand we don't really know at this moment and am willing to wait on the science, but that even in this unsettled state that shattered thinking is shattered thinking. The kind of shattered thinking that leads to the psychopathic wish for Trump to nuke the world. People who are born are given the great superior position of getting to choose to ride this blast or in vanishingly small relative numbers to exit the stage. On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"The fact that people can change their opinion after exposure to new information is not evidence of free will. It's evidence for determinism. If anything, the world in which nobody ever changed their opinion regardless of what new information that they were exposed to would be better evidence in favour of free will. No, the determination to choose to furiously attempt to get people to choose differently while simultaneously holding that there is no such thing as real choice is a direct sign of derangement. Such a belief could only rationally lead to taking it less seriously and just riding the ride as it would be absolutely futile to get uptight over anything. It would ultimately be incredibly liberating. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2017 9:51:18 GMT
tpfkar The fact that people can change their opinion after exposure to new information is not evidence of free will. It's evidence for determinism. If anything, the world in which nobody ever changed their opinion regardless of what new information that they were exposed to would be better evidence in favour of free will. No, the determination to choose to furiously attempt to get people to choose differently while simultaneously holding that there is no such thing as real choice is a direct sign of derangement. Such a belief could only rationally lead to taking it less seriously and just riding the ride as it would be absolutely futile to get uptight over anything. It would ultimately be incredibly liberating. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. The illusion of choice does not imply and never has implied that people are locked down to having one opinion on a certain subject throughout their life. It only means that we can only choose what we are predetermined to choose based on factors that we do not choose for ourselves. Your conclusion would only make sense if I knew in advance what the outcomes would be in a) a future in which I kept my own beliefs to myself, and b) a future in which I shared my opinions with others, and found that there was no difference or only negligible difference between the 2 outcomes. If I knew that to be the case, the I probably wouldn't bother too much about sharing my own opinions, except if I felt like doing so recreationally. Since I have no ability to foretell the future, all I have are probabilities. As a conscious mind myself, I am a vessel of information that can be shared with other conscious minds. Based on the information that I have at my disposal, combined with the high degree of confidence I have in being able to defend my own opinions, then future b) seems to have a higher probability of being conducive to the outcome that I desire than b. There's no magic trick involved in any of this, nor any belief that I'm going to subvert an immutable course of events. Either you're very obtuse, or you're absolutely terrified of what you perceive as the implications of not having free will.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Dec 16, 2017 10:03:49 GMT
tpfkar No, the determination to choose to furiously attempt to get people to choose differently while simultaneously holding that there is no such thing as real choice is a direct sign of derangement. Such a belief could only rationally lead to taking it less seriously and just riding the ride as it would be absolutely futile to get uptight over anything. It would ultimately be incredibly liberating. Not at all, because it's better for me to suffer than for a greater number of people to suffer. The illusion of choice does not imply and never has implied that people are locked down to having one opinion on a certain subject throughout their life. It only means that we can only choose what we are predetermined to choose based on factors that we do not choose for ourselves. Your conclusion would only make sense if I knew in advance what the outcomes would be in a) a future in which I kept my own beliefs to myself, and b) a future in which I shared my opinions with others, and found that there was no difference or only negligible difference between the 2 outcomes. If I knew that to be the case, the I probably wouldn't bother too much about sharing my own opinions, except if I felt like doing so recreationally. Since I have no ability to foretell the future, all I have are probabilities. As a conscious mind myself, I am a vessel of information that can be shared with other conscious minds. Based on the information that I have at my disposal, combined with the high degree of confidence I have in being able to defend my own opinions, then future b) seems to have a higher probability of being conducive to the outcome that I desire than b. There's no magic trick involved in any of this, nor any belief that I'm going to subvert an immutable course of events. Either you're very obtuse, or you're absolutely terrified of what you perceive as the implications of not having free will. All of that voluminous frantic jabber doesn't change one whit the baseline fact that believing that there is no real choice and simultaneously "choosing" to frantically, lugubriously attempt to get other people to choose differently than if you did absolutely nothing is sad mental incapacity. Knowing the outcomes is absolutely irrelevant as they would be the same no matter what you pretended to choose to do. The only way you could be rational in such a system of thought would be to hold that you know it is useless but your arms are going to wave frantically on their own because precursors and there's nothing you can do about it. I guess maybe you're screaming that on the inside, but since you can't really choose anything concerning your fingers... And there is no "either" of any kind about the derangement of your posts. The kind that leads one to the supervillain psychopath wish for Trump to start an apocalypse to "save us". On that note, you've also called me "deranged", which is the mental illness equivalent of "n*****"
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Dec 16, 2017 11:19:07 GMT
Well, nuking the world would end all suffering as we know it so it seems to fit in with his philosophy.
|
|