Linguistically, its possible for two people to have a conversation that each believes to be meaningful, which actually has no meaning because one or both of them don't know what they're talking about.
I already finished writing your content! If you looked, you'd have known and we wouldn't be having this meeting for you to change things. Grawr!
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:48:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hello? Hello, anybody home? Huh? Think, Kitten, think! You've still gotta retype everything up! Do you realize what would happen if I handed in my content with your code base? I'll get fired! You wouldn't want that to happen, would ya?
We just had a meeting with our alg folks wherein we confirmed that there was a rounding error. We'll discuss hardcoding the value to 100% during tomorrow's stand up; we'll do a deep dive with the developers at the beginning of the meeting.
We need to have a meeting about the meeting first.
nagol93 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:36:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It has come to my attention that we are having too many meetings around here. If made chairmen I will assemble a team of highly skilled individuates. Hold an assembly with every Tuesday and Thursday to discuss cutting back on the excess of meetings. My goal is to increase productivity and synergy in the office.
It's been 12 years, I don't have the exact messages anymore. But a friend and I had a conversation over text. One of those conversations with 5-20 minutes between each reply but lasts all night.
Apparently, the telecom network was all kinds of fucked up and was delaying most messages and then sending them out at an random point in the near future.
We didn't know of the issues at the time, but because the other wouldn't respond after a while (since they never got the message or their reply was not sent), we ended up aending a second text on a different topic. I remember that I changed the subject at one point because I thought I had annoyed my friend when he didn't reply, and iirc he did something similar the same night.
I remember the conversation being incredibly weird. He was responding in ways that he usually didn't. But he was being coherent, just not his usual self.
When we met up a day later, we compared phones. We had both received all messages, but in a different order. The conversations were completely different. Somehow, both of our (jumbled) replies had made sense to what the other person was talking about.
One thing I remember is that I was joking about how I'd prevent him from dating my current crush (which he had unintentionally done in the past with a previous crush). He responded with "Sorry, (name) just walked into the bedroom and kept me occupied for a long time". The name he used was that of my current (second) crush. I assumed he was making a stupid joke and replied with a joking provoking behavior (e.g. you wanna take this outside motherfucker?) But he was actually referring to his girlfriend's mother, who had the same first name. I knew that, but hadn't thought about it because it made more sense that he was talking about my crush since that was what I was talking about.
The conversation was littered with those types of out of context messages that took on a whole different meaning for the other person. When put in a different context, they ended up being a surprisingly reasonable sequitur (barring a few exceptions, which we discarded as not understanding what the other had meant).
It almost did. I remember getting massively offended at one point (not the thing I mentioned earlier, which was with a joking context) and opened the conversation the next day by asking him to explain himself. That's how we got the ball rolling.
Though we were close enough to not let it ruin our friendship, I'm still glad that we had our phones to prove what we had understood differently.
gurnard ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 02:06:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One day my (ex)girlfriend received a text from me out of the blue, saying
We can just head back to my place, she didn't know we were meeting anyway
On a day we didn't have plans together.
You can imagine how she'd read that. Lucky she forwarded it to me to rub in my face before cutting off all contact. I remembered typing it too. To her, regarding blowing off a non-plan with a mutual friend, three weeks earlier.
gavmo ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:35:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
honestly you probably don't wanna be in a committed relationship with someone who cuts off all contact based on a text message with no context...
gurnard ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:01:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
gurnard ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:38:17 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah that was a few months into a three or four year relationship. She cooled down, I showed her my sent messages that put it into context and everything was fine.
Still a lot of dang raised blood pressure by a little electronic malfunction with a dark sense of humour, which is the point.
I was making weekend plans with a friend not long ago, and she sent three texts with little delay, but they arrived in reverse order. Fortunately, this only resulted in me being super confused, and in fact prevented me from walking into her April fools joke.
This is a perfect example of where I would like to have an actual answer but because everyone on reddit likes to give useless, unfunny responses we won't get one.
Two people are separated by a wall. There is a slit in the wall where person A puts a card with Chinese symbols in a slot. Person B picks upbthe card and then consults a guidebook which tells them which Chinese symbol to respond with. Person B has no idea what they are responding with. But person A can reasonably assume that they're having and intelligent conversation. However, if person A is also only passing in the symbols that they have been told to pass on then despite the fact that the communication between the two makes sense, neither of the participants have any idea what they are talking about.
I mean even if the meeting itself was non productive simply having both sides leaving believing they had a meaningful conversation would be a diplomatic win.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:37:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
watch the white Christmas episode of black mirror. I guy is flirting with a girl and talks about overcoming anxiety and "turning off the voices in your head" She takes it quite differently
My wife works at a distribution center. She has about a dozen acronyms for stuff they do, scan packages, route them, fix them, audit the vans, etc. Most things have a funky acronym attached to it.
Some days she'll walk in excited or upset about how X got his NDYI wrong and got a write up but since his NSI wasn't as bad he didn't get a HDFN so she had to talk to the manager before the BWEQ was submitted. (I'm making these letters up).
I then have a "deer in the headlights" look until she finishes and I try to repeat what she said, then we spend another 15-20 minutes with her explaining what each set of letters mean and why they're important. So we have a half hour conversation that was very emotionally important to her, but it was a wikipedia entry to me.
Take a stupid word like โblueโ. You think it means the color, another dude thinks it means the texture of corduroy. Maybe heโs blind, doesnโt matter.
You say something like, โI love blue.โ
He says, โYea! Me too.โ
You say, โI wish I could get my whole room done in blue...โ
He says (imagining rolling around on it), โHoly crap! That would be awesome! I love the way it feels...โ
You (thinking heโs a little weird, but going with it), โYea, I love blue. I wear blue clothes whenever I can.โ
He says, โIโd like that, but it gets dirty really quickly.โ
And so on. Thatโs a super simple example. Imagine that playing out with something that most people donโt fully understand. Emotions, quantum physics, doesnโt matter.
How can you talk about something without really knowing what it is? Turns out humans do that almost without even thinking about it. Pretty weird.
I had this experience with my father when I was in my teens. The conversation went like this:
Me: "Hey, I saw a cardinal down by St. Paul's on my way home today."
Dad: "Wow! That's a rare sight! I wonder what he was doing there...?"
Me: I don't know, I haven't seen one in person before, so it really stood out. I wonder if that means they'll be coming here more often. They don't usually venture to this part of the country, so maybe he'll stick around."
Dad: "What was he doing?"
Me: "Singing, looking around. Not much."
Dad: "Singing? Where was he?"
Me: "Sitting in a tree."
Dad: "What...?"
I was talking about a bird, and he was talking about a Catholic Cardinal. English is tricky.
Yeah no that one is your fault. If you're mentioning that you saw a Cardinal at A CATHEDRAL then it's fair game to assume you meant the religious kind not the feathery one.
No two communicating people can ever come to a 'true understanding' because they are two different people. Maybe they can come really close due to similar biology, environments, and so on; but they will never be able to convey their conciousness in completeness because it would require the same exact perception and contextualization between the two parties. They would have to be the same person; One can only communicate with themselves in such an encompassing way.
And even that gets tricky. At least with me it does. Delusion, numbness to situations, random thought tangents, and other stuff all lead to never really being 100% about anything concerning myself.
And even that gets tricky. At least with me it does. Delusion, numbness to situations, random thought tangents, and other stuff all lead to never really being 100% about anything concerning myself.
I'm sitting in the emergency room right now and this made me giggle out loud.... twice
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:23:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think one of the craziest aspects of concessiness is the fact that we can apply so many things to so many things. You can use a word to describe so many unrelated things. Doesn't always make perfect sense, but it's something that really shows the intelligence and awesomness of the human brain.
The fact that there is transcendent properties to so many things is quite amazing too.
There's a scene in Arrested Development where George Michael is telling his aunt Lindsey about a teacher he has a crush on. However, Lindsey thinks he's talking about her as a mother figure, and offers herself to fill that role...while George Michael thinks his aunt just propositioned him and is deeply disturbed. Meanwhile, Lindsey is proud of herself for being a role model. Something like that?
thats similar to how someone can think green to them is blue to me. and whenever blue is talked about we see different colors but the conversation makes perfect sense
This is why misunderstandings are so common, its very easy for our brains to misinterpret things, and make incorrect conclusions, also conspiracy theories!
Allupual ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 21:45:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok no joke in my (high school) french class (4h) we had an entire conversation for a solid 10 minutes about les camions. Like we were in a circle doing fgroup discussions and the teacher would ask people questions if they werenโt raising their hands- stuff like โhave you ever jumped on un camion like Meursault did in the storyโ.
Near the end of the convo this one girl raises her hand and says โIโm so lost whatโs un camionโ And I said โa truckโ while another actively participating girl said โa camelโ. Sparked a debate, roughly half the class thought we were talking about camels bc when theyโd asked their friend sheโd said camel and that got passed from person to person. I laughed my ass off, it explained why that girl answered the above question w/ โno Iโve never been to Israelโ
For the record it does mean truck
Tommero ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:43:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this reminds me of a real life incident wear a japanese doctor was communicating orders to a chinese nurse, both speaking in english which was their second language. long story short a patient died as a result.
I'm sure the doctor thought he was correctly communicating his orders and the the nurse thought she correctly repeated and understood the order.
I don't know how seriously implicature and Paul Grice's cooperative principle are taken in the academic world, but I think they're drastically important when just talking about stuff that's controversial, especially in political arguments.
Implicature is basically what's suggested by what you say, not just the exact words. Like you ask me to go to lunch tomorrow, I say I have to work, then you see me downtown the next day and you're pissed off, but I say I only had to work at night. I implied I couldn't go to lunch with you because I had to go to work. That was the implicature.
Nothing pisses me off more than, in political arguments, people saying they're "just stating facts" and leaving it at that. No, motherfucker, saying the sky is blue is stating a fact, but there's a reason you chose to say what you did over that. There was more to it than "just stating facts." Stuff like that is horseshit. Like when an implicit meaning is crystal clear but when you call someone out on it they accuse you of twisting what they're saying or putting words in their mouth or whatever.
Linguistically, its possible for two people to have a conversation that each believes to be meaningful, which actually has no meaning because one or both of them don't know what they're talking about.
That perfectly describes my 10 minute long conversation with my friend when we were coming down off MDMA. He had no idea what I was talking about. I had no idea what I was talking about as well. Same applied to him. Just words. But the emotion was real so we got along.
Even if they both do know what they're talking about, they could have such different understandings of things (anything from simple word choice, to world view) that they're still both participating in two different conversations and conveying much less than they think. Or possibly, more than they realize.
If both people believe it to be meaningful, then who decided it wasn't?
_darzy ยท 6121 points ยท Posted at 13:17:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Basically the hard problem of consciousness. If you are just a highly complex collection of physical matter, how does a first person point of awareness come into being? Why do we experience things from such a non tangible way while being made of tangible stuff?
To add to this, consciousness is really the only thing we can always be sure of. If we are all just a "brain in a vat", at least consciousness is real. How nuts is that?
Regardless of if we are a brain in a vat, a simulation, or science project on an alien kids shelf he got a C- on:
What we experience is real so does anything really change?
[deleted] ยท 417 points ยท Posted at 17:38:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is interesting also in the context of virtual reality/Matrix-like consciousness. Lots of people might choose to live in alternative reality that is "happier" than a "real" reality outside a Matrix because it is still real to them.
Basically you could be perceiving anything your mind can think of. You may just be in a cave staring at the wall, creating entire concepts of existence in your head. When you start to consider your thinking, you stop looking at the shadows on the wall and start looking at what causes the shadows. Maybe its the truth or maybe its all an illusion, who knows whats casting the shadows.
From what I understood, it was saying that we kind of just accept reality as it is presented to us, but once we leave the โcaveโ we can never really go back because we know it isnโt real.
lil-rap ยท 152 points ยท Posted at 22:19:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Plato was saying a lot of things when he wrote that chapter in The Republic, however his main point in the context of the rest of the book was to argue that philosophy is the highest order of reason in an ideal society. Philosophers are the ideal human, and everyone else should be beneath them in the social order because they are the ones who truely understand society. Many of Platoโs quotes are used incorrectly because they are taken out of context.
A very interesting aspect to his cave allegory is that when the enlightened escapee returns to free the others, they donโt want to be freed.
I thought the Allegory highlighted the difference between an object, and the idea of the object. We only see the shadows, not the actual truth of the object.
Many of Platoโs quotes are used incorrectly because they are taken out of context.
That's one way of looking at it. Some people have argued that a text can stand alone and be interpreted without regard to the author's intentions, and that what you get out of it by doing so isn't necessarily "incorrect".
Demojen ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 01:36:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They don't want to be freed and they think he's insane.
lil-rap ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:40:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
however his main point in the context of the rest of the book was to argue that philosophy is the highest order of reason in an ideal society. Philosophers are the ideal human, and everyone else should be beneath them in the social order because they are the ones who truely understand society.
Plato also didn't have everything figured out, either. He had interesting ideas, but he said a lot of crazy shit that doesn't hold up.
Plato asserted that knowledge didn't require evidence. In other words, experimentation was not necessary. One need only sit in a chair and think and they could eventually know all there is to know. Basically, assume your way to truth.
He was full of shit in that regard - obviously discovery of influences outside of yourself are necessary to broaden your base of knowledge. Everything else is just assumption.
lil-rap ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:48:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe it's simple-minded of me, but when I start to think Plato might be wrong or crazy, I assume that I am missing his point or misunderstanding his meaning. There are many metaphors, ideas seated deeply in historical or cultural contexts, and jokes included in Plato's writings that can make him sound like a nut sometimes. And to be honest, I don't think Plato of all people would think knowledge doesn't require evidence. I would argue the Socratic method is proof of that.
The Socratic method is attributed to Socrates, not Plato.
And even the Socratic method doesnโt rely on evidence - just discussion. So itโs a group of people coming to a consensus on an assumption, rather than one person making that assumption themselves.
lil-rap ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:16:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Socrates never wrote anything, it was all written by Plato. You make a fair point about it though.
Yeah, I agree. I thought higher of Plato and the allegory before I read the book and got proper context. You can still learn things from Plato, but a lot of what he says is kind of silly.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, it's only silly if you take it literally, which people usually don't.
Well, it seems to me that Plato meant it very literally.
I'm aware that you can learn from him without taking every word as truth, if that's what you meant. There is a lot to learn. All I mean is that the Theory of Forms, which Plato supported most heavily in his allegory, is a bit silly.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:34:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hmm, I disagree that the Theory of Forms is silly, but you're right, I do think it was meant to be taken seriously. I meant more outlandish things like the three waves of reform in The Republic, which are more meant to prove a point than be taken at face value.
You're right, it's not exactly silly. The "root idea" of it, that ideas are different from objects, was insightful. He was mislead in his conclusion to this issue, and that it what I was referring to when I said it was silly.
What do you mean by the "three waves of reform"? We most likely read different translations of the book.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:50:38 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That makes sense. I'm speaking to Socrates' prescription for the entirely just city in which he recommends the same roles for men and women, communism of women and children, and finally philosopher kings, suggestions that were ultimately meant to show that translating perfect individual justice to the city was impossible and would in fact make life hellish, which was taught to me to mean that perfect political justice is inherently impossible. But if you were reading The Republic as a literal guide to creating a just city, you would think those ideas are not only silly, but insane.
I see. I recall Plato describing how this society would devolve in to other forms of government, but I do not remember him suggesting that the society was flawed before said devolution. Could you explain this to me?
Not only do they not want to be freed but may very well kill the escapee to keep intact their own understanding of reality. We see this play out all the time; nobody wants to realize they may have been previously bamboozled and will often double their efforts when confronted with the truth.
A very interesting aspect to his cave allegory is that when the enlightened escapee returns to free the others, they donโt want to be freed.
Yes, I feel this very deeply in respect to religion. People just cannot give up this shadow on the wall. I feel like I have been out of the cave, have seen the fire causing the fire on the wall. Yet everyone believing in religion wants to stay chained up.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In modern Platonic study, it's widely regarded as impossible for someone living in the modern, neoliberal international system to escape the cave. Most people can barely comprehend what it means to be in the cave. Realizing that something is a social construct isn't "going outside the cave."
Well, to the extent that we may be living in the Matrix, it may be 100% impossible to get out of the cave. Maybe we are the dream, of a dream, of a dream, of a 2,432-dimensional being. Maybe we are all disembodied brains. Maybe we are living in an actual fart of some supersized creature. Who the fuck knows. I could go on like this for hours on random "who knows" kind of shit.
So, yes, at some point, one can think up all kinds of scenarios. But, in this universe, taking it for what it presents itself as, there are 'better' and 'lesser' ideas of "the cave" and "the shadows. "
Just expanding on this to add that(at least from my understanding)it is the duty of the person who had seen the light to return to the cave and share their newly found knowledge with those still in the dark.
Weed did that to me , haven't been the same ever since
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:11:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did you highly contextualize the experience as 'just drugs'? Because when you think about it, everything changes us, but the things that change us the most dramatically we call drugs and sanction them off as if those experiences are somehow lesser.
Anyway, I was on LSD this one time, and I noticed that there was a very distinct feeling between looking at my phone and looking out into my room, changing rooms, etc. It was just an exaggerated version of something that happens all the time anyway, and if I look for it even now, I can see the stark fragility of my own experience. So you can have those kinds of world-altering experiences too, even if the trip itself isn't seen fully as another aspect of reality.
Where's a memory when you're not remembering it? If I'm not thinking about the outside world right now, while I'm sitting inside, then it doesn't really exist to me. The moment I think about it, I've remembered it, and so naturally I'd say that it exists. But it's just as easy to see that it normally doesn't. In that way, the world is easily seen as fake.
Iโve done my fair share of lsd for sure, and I get what youโre saying about transitions from place to place. And when you think about it, really the world only exists inside our own head. Itโs kind of the reasoning behind one of my favorite quotes โsave one person and you save the world.โ (or however it goes, in obviously paraphrasing here) I think that psychedelics can open up new thought patterns and ideas in people, which effectively changes the world. Not sure what Iโm trying to say but I definitely Dog where youโre coming from with how it can change how you see the world around you.
I guess that's just the Plato theory. I think Descartes thinks like you do when he says that "I think therefore I am". Because his brain is capable of making thoughts, he agrees that he must exist in some fashion, whether or not he can perceive it. True perception doesn't matter as long as you continue to exist.
I mean, does it matter? The point us the shadows are only an illusionary reality. It takes education and thought to find one'side way out of the cave and emerge into the genuine sunlight
So this isnt the idea of his. His idea is that the entire concepts of reality, everything encompassed, are merely reflections being displayed onto the cave. Any knowledge of chemistry, physics, science disciplines are simply observations of the shadows themselves. True meta thinking is when you start to question the source of these shadows. To plato, there is a very high chance that the puppets creating the shadows are perfectly similar to the shadows, therefore the world we percieve is likely to be the true representation and our understanding of science is relevant, but there is a chance it is distorted to a view only we can understand.
Uh, what? No. The only point to the shapes is that they cast shadows that the prisoners take for reality due to familiarity, their shape is irrelevant because the world outside the cave is plato's reality. Who taught you this?
My apologies, this was the description a philosophy 102 professor gave to me. If this is incorrect would you mind giving me a comprehensive explanation of the theory?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:58:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Basically it means that you only really understand what you have seen. You can only think in forms that exist in your mind, that you have perceived or constructed.
The story's like, some people only saw shadows on a wall their entire life, they thought the whole world was shadows, until they were set free and saw the real world.
Isn't part of the allegory how one of the prisoners gets free and goes out and sees the real world and goes to guide the unenlightened other prisoners because he has seen the real world that they see nothing but the shadow of? And he insisted that our world was the same, nothing but a shadow of some world of ideals, were the platonic (he probably used an earlier word for it) ideals of all concepts existed and was the "truly real" world that mattered. So I would say the direct opposite to optimistic nihilism.
itโs really genius it is the perfect example of all we see is all we know and itโs 100% true thereโs really no way to disagree with it. definitely one of my favourite things iโve read
I always tell people I'd take the blue pill. At first they look at me like "what, but it's a lie".
And then I point out how fucking miserable the "real world" was in The Matrix.
Like, you're given an option to stay in your dreamland, or be awoken into something that is apparently far worse and sinister. Fuck man, unless my life is really that bad, I'ma stay under.
iwviw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:02:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:18:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Very much so. Word of warning, even if you don't like the first episode, I would keep watching for a few episodes after that, they are much different from the first. (each is a completely stand-alone episode)
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:08:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a tough one for me. I think I would take the red pill despite it being a lot harder, I would want to live in "reality." Yet, the paradox of being alive is that we can't prove that even choosing the red pill is "reality."
This is similar to the "evil demon" scenario with thick and thin illusions.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am not familiar with this. I googled the term "evil demon," and came across a Descartes theory that seems to match this idea. Is this what you are referring to?
Ya why not go rock climbing in a simulator instead of traveling thousands of miles to the real mountain.saves a lot of travel if tour AR is real enough.
Demojen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:35:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lots of people do this. In fact the human mind deliberately encourages you to enter a fantasy state of mind when you're depressed. It's a method of coping with the pain.
While some people write and others exercise to get through the pain, still many go to sleep and dream of a world where it doesn't hurt and they aren't crying.
Some people wonder if its all real, but I thnk the truth is that if we live in a simulation and its of a really high resolution like maybe GTA on steroids it probably doesn't matter.
This is actually a major plot point in the Matrix series and is what ultimately resolves the main conflict in the end. One of many great ideas that those movies epically fumbled.
More accurate might be, "If it's indistinguishable from a reality (maybe not the one we physically inhabit in a brain-in-vat scenario, but a reality), then what's functionally the difference?"
My example for trying to explain my view is, say you're stressed and go to get a massage to relax. You get someone to give you a reiki massage, and you feel better. Does it make any difference for your experience, in terms of going from stressed to relaxed, if your chakra/ki/whatever was manipulated versus relaxing muscle manipulation and touch? The energy part might not be physically real, but it's still a part of your experience of reality.
There's a difference between determing what's reality, and interpreting things that aren't real even in your frame of reference.
That kind of thinking like you described is why people can look at rain after praying, and thinking the Gods are listening to them. There's a big difference between the chaotic nature of weather, and the idea that a deity is actually listening to a person's prayers...
It's a dangerous slippery slope that many throughout history have used to justify all kinds of horrible shit.
Replis ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 08:16:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reality are the sum of things we observe and experience. So we can sum it up like this: Ourselves, our life, and the universe.
So it's objective.
Naming things, like the phone in your hand right now happens like this: You observe it with your sense organs, they direct it to your (healthy) brain, the brain checks with preliminary information of the phone in your hand and because you know because of the information that it is called "phone", you name it.
When we do this, we can be sure of 1 thing: It exists.
So everything that we can observe, it exist and we can name it.
Reality are the sum of things we observe and experience. So we can sum it up like this: Ourselves, our life, and the universe. So it's objective.
It's not objective.
Perception and reality itself is subjective. People with color blindness or other conditions perceive the world differently from you. It'd be a world you wouldn't consider "real" and yet for them it IS real. That's the simplest example, but it highlights how you can not consider reality to be objective.
When we do this, we can be sure of 1 thing: It exists.
How do you know?
How do you know you're not just a brain sitting a vat of fluid, being fed electrical impulses as stimuli from an outside source giving you all the necessary data your brain needs to construct the "fake" world around you?
You would have no way of knowing that. No way to figure out if that's what's happening or not.
Do you see where the problem lies? You're trying to say you know exactly what's going, that reality itself is objective, when in fact you have no way of prove anything for sure.
So everything that we can observe, it exist and we can name it.
And in the end, you still have no idea if it's real or not..
When they say change, they mean does it really matter either way?
If everything we experience is "real", or if we're in the matrix in a simulation, or we're just bundles of atom/molecules in a complex system of chemical reactions, we still perceive ourselves the way we are.
Regardless of what's true, we are as we perceive ourselves to be.
I'm content with the fact that we are alone in the universe and that nothing we do will have any serious effect on the outcome of life in general... it's the other possibilities that truly scare me.
Unless you transcribe to the tenets of Last Thursdayism which is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday and that everything, including your memories of the time before last Thursday, was all formed at the time of creation. Under this principal most of your experiences are not real and were only made up last Thursday. I'd say that changes things.
It's fun to think about, but it's nothing to fall into a crisis over, as some people seem to feel.
If we are a brain in a jar, or a science experiment in some higher dimension, or a computer simulation, that fact is in a dimension which we cannot perceive. So it doesn't matter.
It's also an unfalsifiable hypothesis. i can't prove that I'm NOT a brain floating in a jar, but there's no evidence to suggest that I am.
There's a thought experiment for this (and the existence of God, actually) which says "Prove to me that there isn't a pink teapot floating in space somewhere between Earth and Mars."
If I can't disprove it, does that mean I should assume it exists? No.
It's almost always impossible to prove a negative.
Extend this out to a practical use case: A fair criminal trial.
It is the prosecution's job to prove the defendant committed a crime.
It is NOT the defense's job to prove the defendant DIDN'T commit the crime (proving a negative) because that's practically impossible in most cases.
The defense only has to demonstrate that the prosecution doesn't have proof, or that their "proof" is flawed / has room for doubt.
ChiP60 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:47:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I believe you are referring to Bertrand Russell's teapot.
Ok but you can still ask the question โif all these things about science are what they seem to be, how does consciousnesses fit inโ. The good thing about asking questions about science is it can lead you to be able to predict and control things.
It's very possible, even likely, that this is all a simulation in some way or another, and that something grander exists outside of this. But if I were to take that to mean that this here-and-now stuff โ my day to day experiences โ didn't matter because there's something bigger than them, then isn't it also fair to say that that grander stuff ALSO doesn't matter because there's ALSO something bigger than IT?
At what point does it start to matter? At what point can you not go up another level?
You have three choices: keep hunting for the level at which things finally matter (which likely doesn't exist, by that reasoning), decide that absolutely nothing matters and completely and totally check out, or decide that you might as well accept this reality as the one that exists.
Sure, other ones may exist on a bigger scale that have greater importance, but I can't do lick spit about them. There is literally nothing I can do to affect the reality my reality is a simulation within, so I might as well just accept that this is my reality, and do the best I can with it.=
We covered this in first year psychology for just a bit.
For the whole "are we just a brain in a jar" situation, overall, the science boils down to 2 answers(sorry, I do not remember who to cite, this was ages ago):
We don't know (until we can make such a simulation ourselves)
Yeah, the way I see it, if we are all just computer simulations running in a program somewhere, what we perceive as real is as real is it is going to get, so there is no difference.
Dqueezy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:58:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You know that feeling people talk about when they speak of standing on mount everest, or being on the ISS and looking down at the earth from farther away? It makes them feel small, unimportant, and that is somehow comforting (most of the time) to the person....
I think that's a similar emotion that would be triggered finding out we are an intelligence species glowing on a mold spore for some alien kid's 3rd grade science project.
If someone convinced me that was our case, I probably wouldn't work 40h/wk to pay bills so I can continue working in relative comfort.
I'm not really sure or positive of anything that's a pretty major mindset change to think about.
But if I'm speaking plainly, I would probably take more risks, value my life less, value my future and value descendants or any lineage or whats the word... legacy.
Maybe try to rob a bank or something stupid like that :)
Comfort is a relative term... I mean I was comfortable living in front of moms house in an RV. Actually I found that more comfortable than any rental... I miss that RV, only got to live in that thing for like 6 mo... Maybe I'd buy an RV and go nomad around in my RV.
I remember arguing something like this when I wrote a philosophy paper about "brains in a vat" and Descartes' dream demon. Basically if our outside world is an illusion, and there is no escape from it, it doesn't matter. It's still "reality" to the person.
Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I tried to say this to my sister once! I told her everything in the universe eventually ends in zero whether it is good or bad, so why not do everything I want because I am going to die anyway. Why not have a good time when nothing matters?
its like keeping cognitively conscious and conceptually intelligent ants. to them a terrarium is the real like and real world so our is just in our conscious thought a ball that floats in a black sea of nothing and we only conceptualise the existence of a higher being(s). a being that drinks dark matter how about that for thought.
Even if we are virtualized - it doesn't change the fact that we can probably never prove it (Unless Nero has something to say about it). It doesn't really change anything.
Late to join the party.But I was thinking about this recently.So here it goes.
What we experience is real.
How can we be so sure of that?How do we know that consciousness isn't some two lines of code written into us and that what we perceive as consciousness is nothing but a thought experiment by the alien on his science project to make it a little more interesting?
It is "real" from your perspective. Even if it was 2 lines of code, you would still experience adventure, love, and heart break
Think of it like this: To my dog, everything he experiences is real and done on his own accord. Reality is that I am behind the curtain controlling every single aspect of her life.
m0le ยท 128 points ยท Posted at 15:24:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, we're feeding the sensation that your consciousness is continuous into you along with the nutrient goop. You're actually just a single brief computation of the next state before you die and we spin up that guy.
Even if it's not continuous (which is more than fair to doubt), it still exists in individual moments.
m0le ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 15:46:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now thats an interesting philosophy question. I'd argue that consciousness is linked to thinking about thinking, but if you have no time to do anything that isn't an automatic response, are you still conscious? How about if your memory is altered between each quantum of thought, or your emotions, or your powers of reason?
I'd argue that we don't know enough about consciousness yet, what it actually is, to understand what will happen when we are eventually able to fully simulate a human brain and these issues come up, but it's fun to think about.
You are still conscious just like an animal. But you are just not conscious of having thoughts, of reflecting on ideas, all that stuff but the immediate sensory aspect of consciousness is practically exactly the same in mammals with the same neurotransmitters giving the same general sensations we do
If I am correct in this assumption then it seems strange to me to consider less intelligent animals to be "conscious," but a computer to not be. Isn't it the same idea? Is being programmed any different than running entirely off of instinct?
Imagine a cat or dog yawning and stretching before falling asleep. Since they are mammals, most of what they feel and the way their bodies senses things, as well as large parts of their behavior, are 100% the same. That same adrenaline rush from fear or endorphine from stretching or exercize, dopamine and serotonine for sexual pleasure and general drive in looking for food or for mating. All of these things are more or less the same from their point of view, without all the added pre-frontal cortex structures on top, infact its the reason for successful domestication (other than just by human coercion like with horses or tamed animals); cats, dogs, cows, sheep, goats and pigs all were originally socially organized animals, working in hierarchies over territories. Humans have simply hijacked this indirectly over centuries after themselves being transformed from coevolving alongside these animals and learning from them.
So, yeah. Quite far from what we do with computers. A computer is like a tiny part of what we can do, but that part is magnified to huge proportions, but it is still just a glorified calculator.
In the future when we make sentient machines I'm sure we wouldn't consider them like tools, we maynot even use or know of the word "computer" altogether in our lives by then.
I think it's tricky to draw a precise line between conscience and sentience, just like it's impossible to know when one species officially becomes another, we just draw a line based on reasonable methodology and make models. But I think the shift from unconscious reflexes to conscious, or thinking, animals is as blurry as the shift from social, tribally organized apes which exhibit some flashes of sentience (observable signs, such as with dolphins or bonobos today) to individuals with a form of ego structure from accumulated social communication, and self-consciousness; it was rapid but still over such a long timespan that no single individual ever could be fully aware of this process.
I believe that such ideas centered on the Self, individuality, and consciousness - our own name and reputation, our own possessions, our own offspring, our own birth and inevitable death - all of these slowly but surely installed themselves in our psyche well before we had words to express them; language and higher cognition just unfolded as more of our inner complexity radiated out into social patterns, which then resonate back into new generations, one little step at a time through oral transmission of creation myths and cultural traditions. Sudden leaps forward in the construction of meaning around these questions, from the reactions to natural disasters or to inter-cultural clashes, are undoubtedly the main drivers which gave birth to the language, culture, identity, religion, art and science which are the pillars of human civilization.
I think the invention of writing (from cave paintings to hieroglyphs) around the beginning of agriculture, really unlocked the "poisoned gift" of intelligence, the powerful deceptive and corrupt potential of human sentience, of individuals themselves (by association), at least in the minds of people, as it started becoming profitable to use language to climb the social ranks beyond the scope of our typical tribal, social network, humans have done every evil deed imaginable only to find that natural pressures always find a way of forcing us back into our biological reality, in an enhanced fashion; it's happening in front of our eyes right now, and we're the lucky ones who get to experience not just witnessing, but just even knowing that this is happening, knowing where we come from and where we're going, basically having nailed everything EXCEPT the acceptation of our paradoxical, dual nature and identity, both beastly and godly, and sort of, the realization that everything is flipped on its head, amplified to exagerated proportions and a seemingly out of control chaotic mess simply because we're RIGHT on the line, only one foot through the door, sort of, awkward and self-conscious, caught in the act, in a way that we've never seen and likely will never see again in our evolution. Wanting to go forward but at the same time secretly wishing we were more like dolphins, just swimming and playing in the ocean and not doing this maddening ceaseless building and destroying on our rollercoaster ride up to the stars.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:05:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dont think we are close to simulating a brain. The brain is so much more then a neural network. There's lots of software and layers to it. Even the pattern recognition of of the brain is eons ahead of current tech. The brain can almost instantly recognize something, and weigh and measure millions of different properties of that entity on just a few watts, if not less.
Scientist like to talk big shit about technology and research, but the brain is something altogether different. Most things that resemble intelligence in machines are patterns and tricks. There isn't actual sentience. There isn't actual understanding of what something is and the huge ecosystem of context and filters the human brain has.
Even simulation of a physical brain isn't gonna be easy. You are talking about a 100 billion different nodes, sometimes with hundreds or thousands of independent analog connections, and that isn't to even speak of the amazingly complex chemical system, of hormones, proteins and the epigenetics. The complex phase system of shifting frequency which may very well radically affect the function of individual circuits or networks.
There is so much complexity and entropy, it's possible that the complexity of the human brain is more numerous then atoms of matter in the universe.
m0le ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:20:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think we're all that close yet, but the level of computing power available continues to rise quite quickly, as does our understanding of the brain (look at the work being done by the human connectome project, for example).
Remember, a physical simulation need not be power efficient or even real time - if it ends up taking us multiple megawatts to simulate a system that uses a few watts, that's what we call an efficiency problem for later.
I think the complexity issue is also a red herring - after all, there are more possible bridge hands (cards) than atoms in the universe, but that doesn't stop us analysing and simulating the game in detail.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:03:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True about the energy consumption and time. However when you play cards it's a limited set being used at once, with a limited set of interactions. You cant simulate every possible combination of cards interacting with each other in real time.
The brain isn't really like 100 billion bits, but 100 billion op amps with modifiers for chemicals, and other things built in. Not only are you dealing with a complex range of input and output, but layered dimensions of complexity added by chemical activating or deactivating of certain things, or even modifying them in some ways.
Also how much of the software of the brain is genetic firmware? How much of it is memory? How much is language and context?
How complex is a newborn's brain? Without anything learned? I feel as though its extreamly complex, because just the act of learning and recursive self improvement is extraordinary.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I dont think we are as close as we think. The brain is truly an amazing thing. Concessiness as hacky as it sounds is so freaking insane and amazing when you actually think about it.
I believe we are close to robots that can work in a semi intelligent way without accidentally killing your pets, but a machine to rival the great gem of reality, The human mind? I'm not so sure...
m0le ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:11:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, I agree totally, it's in the "hopefully in my lifetime" pile rather than the "next year" one.
The brain is possibly the most complex bit of matter we know, and we're still closer to poking it with a stick than complete understanding, but we're making progress slowly but surely.
Interesting...I'm Muslim and I've never heard of such a sect. Could you tell me the name of it?
Also, if you mean that the universe is being expanded in every moment, then yeah, that makes fair sense. But do you mean that the universe is being recreated every moment? Because that would just be weird.
Don't remember off-hand, but yeah, every moment the universe is recreated by the will and grace of god. My friend is a professor specializing in all of this, so I trust him, but can't remember it off-hand and by the time I hear back I will have lost this thread. Try googling?
Consciousness isn't even real time. There's a delay between the light hitting your eyes and your brains computation. You're living in a post-hoc world bro. The things you think you're seeing in real time already happened.
I don't think this answer really changes either way. To experience is to have knowledge of an occurrence, and I'm not sure if once you're dead you'll have knowledge of your death. You'll just be dead.
I believe in a real-time existence and post-hoc existence we may have the ability to understand "Okay, I'm about to die" but once we actually die, I don't think there's any cognitive recognition.
Why? We're talking very very tiny increments of time for the brain to do its computations. It's not like you're seeing a world that happened 5 minutes ago. You're seeing a world that happen microseconds ago, if even that(I don't know the science, just that it's fast).
I believe the delay is around 2ms-5ms, iirc. so not a lot, for sure. It does however pose a lot of questions about consciousness and whether or not we have free will. If we are constantly responding to universe that is ahead of us, are we truly acting under our own free will? It's an interesting concept, to me at least.
That's actually huge. When I play an online computer game, anything above 50ms is quite noticeable. I hope the commenter that sort of disregarded this information sees it.
There's a really good book that touches on this stuff called "Who's in charge? Free will and the science of the brain" by Michael S. Gazzaniga if you're interested. I'm not sure if he mentions the time delay via light specifically, but he does go into how we have an interpreter module (the amygdala) that initiates subconscious activities and perceptions without us even realizing it until after we've already initiated the behavior. The question arises of whether or not we acted with free will, and under our own volition, or of we are constantly just operating under an information processing system (sort of like a production system) where the inputs are directly correlated to outputs.
All of this sounds very dense but the author makes it very clear and easy to understand, but at the same time retains the significance of the suggested material. Highly recommend.
6510 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:28:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ever look at a clock and notice when you first focus on it that the second hand seems to take a long time before it moves? Itโs an artifact of your internal processing filling in a small gap in your memory after the change in attention has completed.
And do you ever seem to wake up to right before your alarm goes off? No you didnโt, itโs yet another post hoc construction of events.
Heh, true. The think I hate is when people say "The only think I can be perfectly sure of is that I am conscious" and they put zero effort into thinking about it and won't entertain any possible counter-arguments. That's how you get stuck on a flat-earth viewpoint for a thousand years.
I would argue that even that we cannot be absolutely sure of. If we entertained the possibility that our brain (or at least whatever is generating this experience) is flawed, then it stands to reason that we cannot completely trust the conclusions it comes to.
But thatโs the point. If consciousness exists for you then it exists and itโs real. Itโs basically the first, and therefore only, connection to whateverโs outside our experience.
No its not how do we even know its real or do other being experience it, how do we know this isnt a simulation. Its positively the one think humans are unsure of.
Unless that brain is just a program decrypting/encrypting information. Information is intentionally and specially fed into it from external sources (input) and we process it (experiences) and then encrypt that data (memories)
We could just be an encryption tool and all of this is just a nth-dimensional array of input data..
Conciousness being just an imagionary byproduct of processing the data, but not real.
I can only be certain of my consciousness. I have no idea if you exist independent of my mind or not. There is no If we are all just a brain in a vat here.
Ah but we are not just a brain in a vat, if a brain in a vat had the thought "I am a brain in a vat" then it would necessarily be wrong because the concepts that it attaches the words brain and vat to are not real brains and real vats as it has never experienced such 'real' items only representations of them which is what it would therefore be referring to when using those concepts.
My theory is that what we experience as consciousness is actually a filter of sorts, or a communications layer. For example, computers are doing crazy computations behind the scenes all the time, but we see it as a picture on a screen or audio etc, we don't see the actual computations happening because we wouldn't be able to understand it.
So I think consciousness is just a simplification or highly filtered layer - all this complex information processing fed into a fuzzy logic machine. Consciousness, and what I consider to be "me", is just the simplest most dumbed down layer of the brain. Along those lines, I think if we were to make truly conscious AI, we would need to force restrictions on it - such that it would need to perform computations quicker than possible, but allow it a margin of error, so it would be forced to get approximately correct answers instead of exactly correct answers, and come up with tricks and shortcuts, much as our brain does.
I think for consciousness to exist, we have to be abstracted away from the complex inner workings, and it's this abstraction layer that we perceive as being "us".
I don't think I've put that across very well but hopefully you get what I'm saying.
so_jc ยท 125 points ยท Posted at 19:54:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So youre saying consciousness is an emergent abstraction layered over a complex set of computations?
Yup that's exactly it. Our brains do all sorts of crazy shit that we're not directly privvy to, which is why optical illusions work, they give us an insight into the shortcuts our brains are taking, and the end result that our consciousness (or abstraction layer) experiences.
kevesque ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 23:26:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think you raise a very valid point especially with the filter idea, as studies show we actually perceive and think much more than we are conscious of because of the filtering quality of cognition - focus attention on a task or train of thought as much as necessary and so there is a whole layer of logic operations right under the surface of conscious awareness which makes arbitrary decisions as to what information should be discarded and which should be brought up and sent into the conscious mind.
However I want to add to this, that you may be underestimating the importance and sort of, central role played by the ego and the active conciousness which we call us. The fact that it is a whole in terms of individuality, that it is self-aware, the fact that MY conscious reality is clearly distinct from the unconscious one or the reality of others...
that layer of abstraction, in fact, it may have been more like that at the beginning of the human species. But over a million years of conscious, social interaction and communication between highly self-aware people is a different story altogether. We have been centering around and giving enormous importance to the notion that we are sentient that we have in effect conditionned a whole ecosystem and climate and lush jungle of mental concepts, imaginary or real perception of rich sources of information, ever-growing, like food for thought in a way.
So the actual object of the Self is as much a whole, real legitimate function, as a bird or lizard is a whole real animal. Sure it's a collection of evolutionary adaptations and upper layer of a set of complex computations, but it is also a finite, internally coherent entity of its own, litterally an intelligent lifeform hatching out from our animal bodies, a self-replicating mechanical species, the new pinnacle of complexity manifested by the universe, in the form of a highly social, sentient self-consciousness-based entity slowly ripping our biology apart as it is litterally born from the accumulation of all of our evolutive leaps as well as all form of complex advances in the evolution of life and of natural laws preceding us.
Or immortal, depends how you see it. But it boils down to the same de-naturalisation of humans and eventual ditching of the whole concept of inhabiting and being restricted to a single physical body.
For anyone interested in space, science and futurism of this flavor, and imagination limited only by logic itself, check out Isaac Arthur's youtube channel it's a darned gold mine!!
And that was the day that NeptunesSon realized that humans are not the most advanced lifeforms to evolve on earth, just the closest to transcedning their physical condition comparatively, at this particular point in time.
What your speaking of is perception of things. Consciousness canโt be this though, it is a sense of โI amโ that looks at this โscreenโ part of the brain you speak of.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What would you say to someone who doesnโt believe consciousness is tied to the brain
I don't see where else it would be - before I type out a long response, could I get your opinion on where/what the consciousness is? I don't want to go waffling on if I'm misunderstanding you.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:29:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I claim to be no expert nor claim to have any understanding of philosophy. I also donโt necessarily have a fully formed opinion.
That being said it is my understanding that many would argue that consciousness is derived from something โhigherโ spiritually, be it god or something else (honestly what it is is arbitrary but Iโll further the point in the next sentence). They would argue that while the brain has chemical outputs derived from inputs and that may make us feel a certain way that the actual awareness of self is not and that the contrary has not been proven.
The obvious answer to that argument, from my perspective, is that we know that we can damage our consciousness by damaging the brain. If we lose a limb or an organ, we retain our consciousness and our memory. If we lose a piece of our brain, we lose very specific consciousness and cognitive abilities according to where the brain was damaged. And when the brain dies, consciousness is lost. There is still a lot to be learned about those connections but it's currently the only argument I know of about where a consciousness in humans truly resides. To make the argument of a "spirit" or a "god-gifted awareness" one first has to prove those exist. We know the brain exists. We know consciousness exists. And we know that if we damage the brain, we damage consciousness.
I like to think of it this way: if consciousness is a transcendent phenomenon (consciousness exists outside the material world, and exists prior to our experiences), then the brain can be seen as communicating experiences "upward" to it. So let's say a portion of my brain is destroyed, and I can no longer have thoughts in language form. You could say I no longer have the same consciousness, that it was corrupted and limited by the damage. Or you could say that the consciousness is untouched, it simply no longer has a brain speaking to it.
We can, through meditative exercise or adventurous use of psychedelics, experience drastically altered states of being. I have personally experienced being in states so radically different from normal life that it was hard to understand how I was the same person in both states. The answer was simply that I was. I was the only constant between two radically different people. I could very well be a transcendent consciousness, perhaps one that is shared amongst all being.
At times it seems crazy to believe that, but there is something so straightforward about it. I KNOW that I exist, and nothing else. Even the existence of the physical world is an assumption, and one I have experienced melt away. Perhaps the I that I know is the right place to hang my metaphysical hat.
This is what feels most intuitive to me. Consciousness is something that "plugs into the brain" and uses it as an interface of sorts to filter, shape, and actualize our realities. Obviously it's very simplistic and it draws from a lot of other theories, but it's my favorite so far.
A lot of issues with consciousness seemed to work themselves out when I started thinking outside the materialist box. There are definitely other mysteries out here, but those are for another thread!
I'm really late to replying to this. The claim that consciousness is of a more transcendent phenomenon (spiritual) you appear to believe is based on a subjective stance that you think your mind isn't attached to your body. Subjective experience lacks repeatable proofs and cannot be regarded as evidence. One person on an acid trip is not going to have the same experience as another person on an acid trip. Our bodies all react differently to chemical influences and this is why we have such rigorous studies for medicines both biologically affecting and mental.
I disagree, it is obvious the mind is connected to the body. An acid trip is is just an altered of the state of the brain, experienced subjectively. But I think there is something about consciousness that is distinct from the other functions of the mind. You can alter or lose many brain functions, yet retain consciousness in some limited state. The idea that consciousness exists alongside the brain is not so outlandish, and establishing any sort of evidence one way or the other is nearly impossible.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:41:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I canโt argue with most of that but some might point out that the brain may not necessarily be the source of the consciousness but merely the place it is connected with to the person. So in that scenario consciousness is separate and damaging the brain damages the connection to the physical body. The burden of proof can also be easily turned around to say โshow me the part of the brain that correlates to awareness of selfโ
Again these are not necessarily my beliefs but from what I understand are others
I agree that it lacks very specific proof, at least at this moment in human history of neural science. The brain has been a tricky thing to analyze and we learn new and interesting things every year. However, that lack of information or explanation does not lend to being evidence of a spiritual or godly explanation. So at this point in the argument of consciousness is when people usually reach an impasse. We simply don't know enough to determine a reasonable answer. I would say instead that it is extremely likely that consciousness is derived from the brain according to current scientific understanding. And that's where I currently base my viewpoint.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:51:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs basically the conclusion I sit at right now and while obviously for practical purposes itโs good not to let any theory get in the way of empirical evidence.... I donโt have a rest of a sentence it was good talking with you!
Same! I enjoy talking about it because it is something I think about often. It's clear that we are more than just a brain in a jar that we call a body, but can we really determine that? Have a great day.
The mind is an object in consciousness, the mind can only know other objects, it's impossible for the mind to have an understanding of consciousness because it's in consciousness, no scientist will ever be able to locate it in the brain because it isn't produced in the brain, the brain is an object in consciousness, not the other way around, consciousness is the eternal life of the universe, we are all the one consciousness experiencing the universe subjectively. Meditators have known this for thousands of years and it's nothing to do with religion or god although it is the essential life behind everything it could be referred to as god in that sense.
Lack of information is indeed not proof of the opposite. The thing that gets me about mechanism is the rejection of the possibility of the laws of our universe changing. People really think this is the only universe. If one exists, why not others? To think only one exists is just like thinking the universe revolves around the earth. If many exist, why not some that don't have fixed laws? If some don't have fixed laws, what's keeping this universes' laws fixed?
I keep saying it: We're floating in a sea of chaos, the infinite potentiality of the multiverse.
slabby ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:30:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would say "wtf, consciousness is tied to the brain"
covor ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 01:20:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How do you know that? Why wouldn't the rocks be self aware? What makes the brain special? Just the fact that some electrons are changing orbits there?
slabby ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:24:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We don't "know" that, but it's extremely likely that dualism is false. Dualism is self-contradictory like 90% of the time because it needs epiphenomenalism to make sense, and epiphenomenalism is total BS.
There is just literally no proof of anything outside of the physical. There is no reason to believe in anything else. (And, no, thought experiments are not evidence.)
Hello. So, agreeing with most everything you say but taking minor issue with one thing. The common example of epiphenomenalism is, you are probably aware, the origin mattering for the meaning of paintings even should they be able to be entirely reproduced. The 'though experiment' seems to go that it matters who made it.
In a less strong sense we have indeterminacy of sensory input, or, the determination that differently constituted things are the same. Red-green colour blindness, having a favorite red shirt, it not being red, the choice still being made on account of it being 'red', and so on, which mean some degree of at the least recursivity of consciousness into consciousness is going to be the case. We should suspect this since the more materialistic view often relies on token-token match up between physical and mental states, including the chemical composition of the brain, when type-token is more likely and supported by any two pronged theory of emotion. Which is the more common one, where physiology and intentionality together define the label we give to an emotion.
More strongly, this is why our consciousness is ours. And why we can make things like choices.
So, eh, I'm going to go with some type of epiphenomenalism. It doesn't mean above the physical. It can mean that we're not those silly zombies, though, and that the mental as a particularly kind of physical has highly interactive properties.
. . . Let any conversation between you and I ignore anyone who uses this to argue for supernatural powers, though, because yeah, no.
covor ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:40:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If dualism is false, then everything can have a conscience. The sun for example has many orders of magnitude more electrons moving around, so I don't see how it would not be self aware if there is no thing such as a soul.
As for dualism, there is plenty of evidence that it's true. Near death experiences, reincarnation, and so on.
slabby ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:45:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Near death experiences, reincarnation, and so on.
Those are anecdotes. And, wtf? Reincarnation? That's not real, man.
covor ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:56:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did you read all the literature on it?
slabby ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:35:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's academic literature on reincarnation?
covor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:11:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
so_jc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:30:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I suspect that the abstraction of those underlying calculations resulting in emergent consciousness is paired with some process of reification of ... something. I just don't know
Consciousness is essentially our operating system. It's a translation of underlying facts in a form that is easier to understand, but false. A deep understanding of how consciousness works is similar to how if you took software programming classes, while youd still see the representation of underlying concepts (windows, etc), you'd understand it was a projection of sorts and youd grasp the concepts hidden behind it. Sort of like Neo seeing the lines of the matrix. Consciousness is translated mode of understanding that can be broadened through learning. The majority of people go through life the way your grandmother uses the computer to Facebook and send chain letters. Sort of a funny explanation, but meh.
gurnard ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:51:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This makes much sense but I would not call the result "dumbed down". It's just more simple and intuitive, a good tool for high level decision making (instead of being aware of everything that happens in your mind and body)
Right, to use a software metaphor it's like we render things according to specified filters to make some information explicit and hide other layers.
I agree the 'dumbed down' terminology is not entirely useful.. it's about what we need to access at what point. Ultimately though I think the analogy to computational/software language is limited. Like any reductive analogy, it has value to a point.
I think consciousness is the highest layer of the brain, not the dumbest. It takes all of the past memories, combines it with the present sensory information, and makes predictions about the future while narrarating itself.
I think one could argue that computers already have a level of consciousness in the sense that they can combine simple processes to perform a complex -or external- task. If you think of DNA like DOS, it's easy to see how similar the nuts and bolts are between circuits and cells.
If we could make self replicating computers, actual consciousness will inevitably develop. The problem with this scenario is what that consciousness thinks about humans, which is an unknown because we can't know how it will make decisions.
I personally hope that we stop at a "real world Watson" level of machine learning, and move laterally from there until that technology is ubiquitous. I fear that if we pursue self replication and actual consciousness we may not like the result.
It takes all of the past memories, combines it with the present sensory information, and makes predictions about the future while narrarating itself.
I would argue against that, in that you're not consciously going through all of that detail, it's presented to you, often without you being aware of what is shaping your decision. I could be in a situation I feel uncomfortable in, without recalling specific memories which would give me a clue as to why I might feel uncomfortable. Surely it's the subconscious which is giving me those clues without clueing me up as to exactly what data it's using.
Bobzer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:21:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Alternatively we just have a slow read head on our long term memory partition.
I think your conscious is going through those steps, and you're just ignoring most of it. Your brain is controlling your heartbeat right now, but your consciousness is choosing to (or is built to) ignore that. Your conscious may be unaware of which details it took into account to make a certain decision, but just because that process happened faster than you could recognize doesn't mean it didn't happen.
In the case where you're in an uncomfortable situation, your brain is recalling some detail about your current situation that reminds it of a past situation that was uncomfortable. It doesn't need to go through all of the detail of what day it was or what you were wearing, it just recognizes the similarity and causes you to react with discomfort. This is demonstrated when people are forced to concentrate on memories and they can find greater and greater detail (to a point of course) the harder they think about it. So the memories and the details are all there, but it's just inefficient and slow to think of them one by one.
We may be defining consciousness differently here. I think of my conscious as being the part of me which I can "hear" in my head. That part of me can't go through all those steps while simultaneously ignoring that process. I'm not consciously thinking "this situation makes me uncomfortable because of that situation in the past which was similar which led to bad things". My conscious thinking is "I feel uncomfortable".
I think I'm grouping conscious and subconscious into one consciousness, and you're distinguishing between the two. In that sense, you're right, the aware part only recognizes how you feel after the fact.
But there's another part, the "deeper" part that I was referring to, that is making the actual calculations and triggering chemical reactions in your body. The aware part can mostly only respond to those reactions or try to make some sense of them. I personally think that part is the more interesting of the two.
That's almost my point. The conscious mind is taken along for the ride and then tries to rationalise decisions made by the subconscious. We like to think we're in control but really the conscious mind is just the abstracted layer trying to make sense of the decisions made by the deeper layers, while claiming those decisions as it's own.
Computer science trains you how to model and (over)simplify things, and think about abstract/logical problems. It's not the right tool for everything but it's relevant for thinking about consciousness. EDIT: Turing's imitation game came from a CS researcher but is interesting philosophically.
This doesn't explain the physical - experiential "gap" though. It explains a process, but not the metaphysical conundrum.
To me logically, the best explanation is that conscious experience, as opposed to conscious cognitive process represents some other existential component, like the "substance" of time, or something like that. Many posts here are positing some contrast between the "reality" of matter versus "experience", but it seems to me this is a false duality, which implies that experiential quality, qualia, etc. involve something very basic at a physical level.
I don't really see how complexity can bootstrap a system from one set of physical attributes to another via emergence. Information seems to me the differentiating feature, not the physical basis for that information. E.g., a computer encodes increasingly complex codes, but the alphabet of the codes is instantiated in silicon. Making a more complex program doesn't change the silicon it runs on. Maybe there's something we don't understand about physical properties vis-a-vis information but to me I don't see it. It's a kind of deus ex machina, in a kind of literal sense.
I think that sounds pretty reasonable, though it begs the question why consciousness needs to emerge at all.
One thought I had is that, since you could say consciousness begins in organisms where stimulus-response stops, it became advantageous to organic life to give itself some subjective flexibility in terms of how to respond to different external stimuli intelligently. It expands the menu of potential responses to different situations greatly.
Then the question still remains of what parts of the brain are actually doing That as opposed to all the usual computing.
That explains what consciousness might be, but it doesnt explain the fact that we can expierence consciousness. We see those abstraction layers everywhere, yet as far as we know only we actually can expierence.
Like you said, I think consciousness is more like an interface rather than the complex computations that we're made of. Your body takes care of a lot of things like involuntary muscle contractions (how are you breathing?), chemical secretions, etc. etc. with us knowing literally nothing about that. Without knowledge about physiology we don't even know exactly what's inside our body, but we do know that no matter what, a consciousness arises.
One neat trick is the way imagination exists. We think of it as just being creative and "thinking of something" but I think more specifically if we look at our brains from a computer perspective, imagination is literally a real time simulation. Imagine a truck going down the freeway. Did you imagine the truck and the freeway being in the middle of a busy city with lots of traffic? Or did you imagine the freeway being nowhere, at some random plains out in the country? Just as you read through those last two sentences, you probably manipulated the variables in real time to show the truck going through a city and in the latter, the truck going through a country road.
I've had the idea that our brains are essentially biological supercomputers able to run complex systems, adapt instantaneously, and run realtime simulations with ease. If we have biological supercomputers that can fit these categories, then to me it seems that it wouldn't be impossible for abiotic/graphene supercomputers to replicate the same things.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:17:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are all just living based on memory and our reaction to the environment we exist within. Our awareness is simply our learned behaviors creating moments for us to pass through.
I feel like the study of philosophy just makes more and more whatif questions than necessary. Sure there are deep and complex questions, but that's why we have the other sciences. They help collaborate the assumptions we have about our realities.
Interesting reading! It touches on the social aspects of consciousness as well, which is part of my own theory, however I didn't include that part for the sake of brevity.
There's a podcast that basically says the same thing. The reality we perceive may be so far from objective reality we can't comprehend it, but it works, so we use it.
I'll have a look at that later. It makes sense though, our experience of reality is different to a mantis shrimp's experience of reality, but both experiences are just as "real".
Funny you mentioned the mantis shrimp. Recently listened to another podcast discussing how its eyes have the largest number of cones (colour receptors) yet is unable to effectively differentiate colours. Imagine having such potential yet unable to even perceive it.
Huh, I would have guessed it would be some sort of magic, blue monkey dog.
slabby ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:38:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think this goes well with a deflationary type viewโwhere you take all the "air" out of the traditional views of consciousness and what it does. There are philosophers who make consciousness into such a robust, powerful thing that it could never be explained by a completely physical account. But the deflationary view asks: does consciousness really do all those things, or do we just think it does?
Like if you eat a really good burger and concentrate on the flavor as you eat. If it's really good, you have that near-orgasmic type feeling at how good it is, and philosophers will say: there's no way the physical components of the burger account for that amazing feeling. There must be something beyond the physical that explains how that feeling occurs.
But the deflationary account would just say: the orgasmic quality of eating the burger was all in your head. You were all doped up on neurotransmitters or whatever in the moment, and it seemed almost supernaturally good. But it was really just a very good, but normal, level of burger-taste or whatever. That's just one of the ways your brain can trick you. You think crazy things are going on in your brain but many of them are essentially optical illusions. You think your consciousness is much more rich and vibrant than it actually is.
Essentially the brain takes all the signals from the nervous system and creates a projection what itthinks is going on. So yeah, theres all kinds of filtering going on, we just assume what we experience is close enough to what objective reality may be, if there is such a thing. Interesting
Nerdn1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:10:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That raises an important question: At what point of complexity does a system become conscious?
Furthermore, what can and can't develop consciousness? The most popular thought is whether an advanced computer AI could achieve consciousness, but what about a society or an ecosystem?
Further mind-fuckery: Any computer process can theoretically be replicated by a set of rules run manually. Say we had a large group of people with nothing better to do for the next thousand years and the program for an AI advanced enough to be conscious. If they started manually executing these instructions, keeping track of data on paper, would this system be conscious? It would definitely "think" very slowly, but should still function like the computer AI. What if they used clockwork? What about trained rats?
1369ic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:38:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's interesting to think about this along with the idea that everything happens all at once and our perception of time is our way of dealing with that.
It also reminds me of a short story in which a guy cures the common cold. Our olfactory senses return to their natural state, which is as good as a dog's. We're not able to handle all the input and have to figure out a way to dumb them back down to a level we can handle.
Haha I like that story, I've often thought that if we were to "transcend" or be moved into a machine consciousness or the "cloud", we'd have to slowly adjust the input so we don't go mad. So you'd end up with a new social order...those entities which are new to the cloud and still perceiving things in a basically human way, and those who are older and have access to more of the new abilities...able to access all kinds of new inputs. We'd get closer to gods, but over time so as not to overwhelm ourselves.
Makes sense. We have 5 primary senses but we know other species have others we lack. These senses are the initial filters because they connect us to the universe.
I came up with a similar idea to this in a linear, self adapting model a few years ago with the goal of it being commutable. I need to get back on that project.
This is what I was thinking, but in many different words. The complexity of our thoughts has grown as the complexity of our environment necessitates it. Compared to say, a cat, we have so many different decisions and different options that we face everyday. And each of us is using a different data set. Our consciousness is really just our programming (nature, how our brain is designed because of genetics or happenstance) trying to optimize best with the data it has.
That's certainly how most modern day AI works. They use artificial neural networks, using clusters of artificial neurons with connections that are strengthened or weakened based on feedback they receive. You train google image search, say, by passing it lots of pictures -some with street signs in and some without- telling it which is which (maybe by using people complete a CAPTCHA). After a while you can show it a picture and it can accurately tell you whether it contains a street sign or not, because those strengthened connections roughly equate to learning.
We can't lift the lid and easily point at what makes it work - there's not a nice program of 200 steps that shows its process- but we can give it things and get results.
A GUI is presented to a user to allow them to make simple interactions with more complex mechanisms behind the scenes. Why do we need to present an interface to ourselves? A fully automated system would be more efficient.
High level decision making needs to be fast, and doesn't need to be exact. It's more efficient than dealing with all the complex mechanisms behind the scenes.
Cruxion ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:06:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought that was kinda accepted as a rough idea of what's go once on, as it explains things like having a subconscious that is separate from our normal consciousness.
I think you may be interested in watching some popular Netflix documentaries on DMT. Not sure which, but one is very much themed around out of body experiencies and the concept us seeing the world through a specific filter.
Having experienced some very out there things myself, I can very much confirm that what we perceive as reality is very much just one interpretation of sensory input!
A computer working with probabilities and shortcuts doesn't need to be conscious to do so. Still, what you said doesn't actually explain consciousness. It explains abstraction, and while there are similarities between the two, I don't see how they're the same thing. You have to use consciousness to explain abstraction.
it would be forced to get approximately correct answers instead of exactly correct answers
So faith?
lman777 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:51:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure if you are joking or not, but that's basically how most of our decision making and consciousness works. We don't always have all the concrete facts, but to make high level decisions you need to be able to just "have faith" that the info you have is good enough for you decision to be reasonable.
Not exactly...more like the exact correct answer to some problem would be 3.46815314564877 but given the constraints it comes up with 3, because that's as exact as it needs to be, to greatly simplify things.
As in, you don't get what I'm saying, or you don't think that's a good theory of consciousness? If the latter, could you spare some time to explain where you think I've gone wrong?
consciousness isn't the fact that you're aware of some of your thoughts
Willbo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:51:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You've already established that you have the ability to disagree, but nobody fucking cares what you think unless you can provide support for your argument.
I think it will be a stunning explanation but no more involved than connecting point A to point B, i.e. the growth of our biology in an evolutionary context to consciousness. It is clear one led to the other since there isn't a shred of evidence pointing in another direction. It is truly chilling that we are the result of something that started from something as small as RNA. I am always reminded of that every time I am happy, in love, or sad. I was never dismayed by the idea that it is all just chemicals, I was always impressed by it!
I think you are wrong, there is no shred of evidence either way! Just because a brain shuts down and consciousness empties doesn't mean consciousness disappears. Brains may send experiences "upwards" to a transcendent consciousness that exists regardless of whether or not there are brains feeding it experiences.
I KNOW I exist, I can't say the same for the physical world. It is less assumptive to say "I am because I am" than "I am because the material world has arranged itself in a particular fashion"
I think you are wrong, there is no shred of evidence either way!
There is mountains of evidence for evolution and being conscious is evidence of that.
Brains may send experiences "upwards" to a transcendent consciousness that exists regardless of whether or not there are brains feeding it experiences.
Zero evidence of this. Hence the "may". Brains "may" do a lot.
I KNOW I exist, I can't say the same for the physical world. It is less assumptive to say "I am because I am" than "I am because the material world has arranged itself in a particular fashion"
I didn't state an absolute. I think you need to read the framing of my statement. To say the world can be a simulation isn't evidence against connecting A to B.
Fun to talk about though! All I am saying is that he evidence points in a direction that I am leaning towards. That's all!
It is fun to talk about! Would you be willing to talk further about why you think it is so clear that biological evolution comes before consciousness? There are so many underlying assumptions in this topic in general, I would be interested in hearing more about how you frame your understanding!
Sure. I may have lapses of responses. Busy week. I am just a dude and by no means an expert in any of these fields so you may be really disappointed.
I don't think my position matters if we are living in a simulation or not. If it is, then consciousness has been simulated to happen in the way we observe. So if my suspicion happened to be correct, the fact that it is simulated or not does not matter. I just accurately described the way the simulation has mapped it.
We are conscious, that is one thing we can be sure of. You said so much in your response. Without going into great detail, I think we can agree that life on earth runs the gamut of neurological function, from less complex to extremely complex. The question that I would love answered is, in this array of complexity involving nervous systems, where is consciousness begin?
A possibility I imagine is like an animal changing species over 100,000 years. If you observe in one-year intervals you will almost never find the day an ape changes to a homo sapien. Is consciousness like that as we move up the complexity of life's nervous systems or does it turn on like a switch when we reach a level of cognitive function?
If we agree on these things. There are conscious creatures. Evolution is a fact (as close as we can get anyways). Evolution produced varying degrees of neurological complexities. Our consciousness exists in our brains. Our brains are a product of said evolution. Then that points strongly in one direction for me.
Interesting, thanks for responding. Would you say this is a fair characterization of your argument?
-The material world existed before consciousness
-Simple animals began to develop unconscious nervous systems
-At some point the nervous systems reached a level where consciousness arose
-By tinkering with nervous systems, we will be able to discover where and how consciousness arises. The hard problem will be solved by doing this.
This is pretty reasonable, and I would say is the standard materialist/scientific viewpoint. Here are some thoughts that made me critical of that view. I'm having trouble organizing them, it's getting late!
-Whether a nervous system is conscious is not an objectively measurable trait. Let's assume that the simplest animal consciousness exists in is an earthworm. There is a structure in its nervous system that is responsible for only consciousness, and we remove it. The worm still moves. How could we tell that the worm is now unconscious? It cannot tell us, and we cannot observe it.
-If we cannot observe objectively, I can still explore my own subject for answers.
-Consciousness is the most defining feature of who I am. My thoughts, feelings, and sensations are passing, and I may lose the ability to experience any of them. If I break my neck and become crippled, I still exist even though I do not inhabit that body. If I lose my thinking brain, I still exist even though I do not inhabit that mind (imagine a coma patient, who exists in a dreamlike twilight state). It is possible that the only thing I can call me IS consciousness in itself.
-I know I am, I can't be certain the material world is. Materialism is a basic assumption underlying the scientific method, but that is a limitation. There are questions materialist science cannot answer.
-It is possible I (consciousness) exist separate from the body I am experiencing. When the body goes to sleep, I still exist. I experience nothing until the body wakes back up to create experiences for me.
-The material world existed before consciousness -Simple animals began to develop unconscious nervous systems -At some point the nervous systems reached a level where consciousness arose -By tinkering with nervous systems, we will be able to discover where and how consciousness arises. The hard problem will be solved by doing this.
I would add "The hard problem MAY be solved by doing this.
No worries after my rambling on.
-Whether a nervous system is conscious is not an objectively measurable trait. Let's assume that the simplest animal consciousness exists in is an earthworm. There is a structure in its nervous system that is responsible for only consciousness, and we remove it. The worm still moves. How could we tell that the worm is now unconscious? It cannot tell us, and we cannot observe it.
If you know the system you removed is responsible for consciousness then you know it isn't conscious when you remove it. Not being able to currently measure does not mean it is unmeasurable.
-Consciousness is the most defining feature of who I am. My thoughts, feelings, and sensations are passing, and I may lose the ability to experience any of them. If I break my neck and become crippled, I still exist even though I do not inhabit that body. If I lose my thinking brain, I still exist even though I do not inhabit that mind (imagine a coma patient, who exists in a dreamlike twilight state). It is possible that the only thing I can call me IS consciousness in itself.
I would argue that your consciousness does not exist if brain function ceases to exist. If your body is incapacitated that has nothing to do with the existence of "I" it just feels different. "I" changes with every moment. A coma patient is not conscious much like a patient under general anesthesia. The mechanism still exists, you are just offline. The hard drive is not wiped out. Even if it were and you had amnesia, you would still retain consciousness.
-I know I am, I can't be certain the material world is. Materialism is a basic assumption underlying the scientific method, but that is a limitation. There are questions materialist science cannot answer.
I'm saying it doesn't matter. If it is a simulation then we are describing the simulation.
-It is possible I (consciousness) exist separate from the body I am experiencing. When the body goes to sleep, I still exist. I experience nothing until the body wakes back up to create experiences for me.
Lots of things are possible. There is no evidence for this at all.
Nice chatting! Please understand my tone is not curt in any way. Just trying to answer fast because it is late here too.
[deleted] ยท 39 points ยท Posted at 14:25:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It feels like there's two possible conclusions: Either everything is "conscious", or nothing is.
Of course I don't mean to say a rock is conscious or something. But a rock is made up of atoms, and I am made up of atoms. The only difference is that I have different, more varied atoms and they are arranged differently as well. But what about a microbe? A microbe is lifelike, just like me. It kind of sort of acts out of its own volition, so it's conscious to some degree, at least if you use a soft definition of the word.
Personally, I think the idea of consciousness being something that is or isn't is a flawed perception. I think it's a gradient and there's no one point where a thing becomes conscious. And if I subscribe to that idea, then that opens up a whole different can of worms, because everything is somewhere on that gradient. And as a human, I'm not even at the top. If we stretch the definition of a living organism a little bit, society itself is kind of like its own consciousness. My neighborhood, my city, my state, my country, and the global human population as a whole are just different "levels" of consciousness, if you look at consciousness simply as a system that takes inputs and produces outputs.
if you look at consciousness simply as a system that takes inputs and produces outputs.
I think this is the problem in your argument. I can't define consciousness clearly but I'm pretty sure it's not this. Are machines conscious? Is weather conscious?
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:03:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My whole point is that consciousness can't be defined. Objectively, at least. That's why I keep talking about the subjective definition and how you define it depends on what is or isn't conscious.
If you use a loose definition of consciousness (i.e. takes inputs, produces outputs) then literally everything is conscious. A water molecule takes inputs, and those inputs are interactions with surrounding atoms and molecules. It then produces an output by moving around based on the physics and chemistry of atomic structures. Under the loosest definition of consciousness, a water molecule is conscious. Under this definition, everything is conscious, including the weather, machines, atoms, whatever. The universe is "conscious" because everything interacts in specific ways.
That's what I'm getting at. I'm not asserting that everything is conscious in the way that you're thinking (as in thinking with some sort of brain, to put it simply). I'm saying that if there's no objective boundary where a thing becomes conscious, then either everything is conscious to a certain degree, or nothing is conscious, including ourselves.
I'd say that even though we can't define it scientifically, everyone has an intuitive sense of what consciousness is, the state of being aware. Our difficulties with strict definitions doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it only means we don't really understand it.
If we use (as you define it) a loose definition, it loses its meaning. Consciousness isn't a process, it's a state of being.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:40:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The differences we're having here basically boil down to whether or not something truly exists if it isn't objectively defined. I can say that I exist, because I subjectively see myself as a conscious being. But if I look at myself through an unbiased lens, what defines "me" isn't really me. It's a collection of atoms that are clumped together that can walk around other collections of atoms like other humans, rocks, trees, air, etcetera.
In other words, that world is a sea of atoms interacting with each other, and sometimes they form patterns with each other like simple-celled organisms, rocks, or me. But the patterns aren't inherently separate from the atoms that they are composed of, so the patterns don't objectively "exist" (in this thought experiment).
I don't think we really have any disagreement here. I'm just being intentionally loose with my definitions of consciousness to make my point that it's not something that can be objectively defined. Meaningful conversation can only be had about it if both conversationalists first agree to stick with one definition (as best as they can define it at least) and operate only in that realm.
Well to be fair, the only thing that I know exists is my mind. Everything else could be an illusion. It's impossible to look at yourself through an unbiased lens because everything you know about the world has been processed by your subjective mind. You know that you are a collection of atoms because someone told you and presented proof. You received audio/visual stimuli and your subjective mind processed and accepted the information. Describing objects as a collection of atoms isn't necessarily objective truth, it's just the most logical way for us humans to describe the universe that we observe.
I do agree that both parts need to agree with what the definitions are for meaningful discussion to take place, but I don't agree to your loose definition, because that definition isn't what consciousness is. My main gripe is with redefining a word (to make it more understandable) to the point where it doesn't mean what it originally meant since it sidetracks the discussion. Consciousness isn't a process that turns inputs into outputs, that's just cause and effect.
You know that you are a collection of atoms because someone told you and presented proof.
This is actually incredibly rare. More likely we accepted the combined trust of all those people around us saying it, and all the people saying that other smart, trustworthy people, have proved.
Interestingly, I think that our fundamental reliance in trusting the broadly accepted facts presented as consensus of the experts has begun showing weakness as people start to lose trust in major institutions of experts (medicine, technology, physical sciences, etc) due to controversial debates and fears of subversion of the field/industry by powerful players (corrupt corporations, or other malicious actors).
These cracks in the faith of our system of trusting expert consensus have now given rise to genuine (not just trolling) doubt of incredibly certain scientific conclusions - like the shape of the planet, the general age of the Earth, the existence of dinosaurs, etc.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:09:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I only use the loose definition to emphasize things. There really ought to be different tiers of consciousness that we arbitrarily define. Maybe there is and I just don't know of the names though.
But I would disagree that using a loose definition derails this particular conversation. My only point, if there is one, is that consciousness can't be pinned down. There has to be more categories than conscious or not conscious. And even then, it's still just a gradient. Just like there's an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, there's a scale of "consciousness" a particular arrangement of matter can have. A human might be something like 0.7, and an ant might be something like 0.1, and an atom of helium might be something like 0.00001 or whatever. Obviously this is just a silly idea to try and give numerical values to the consciousness of various things, but I feel like it helps emphasize what I'm going for.
There really ought to be different tiers of consciousness that we arbitrarily define. Maybe there is and I just don't know of the names though.
I don't think there is, mainly because no one really knows how consciousness actually works. It's difficult to quantify an intangible quality that you don't understand.
Consciousness might be on a gradient, but it also might not. The only thing that I think seems certain is that humans are conscious. Some animals seem to display a certain level of consciousness as well, apart from that your guess is as good as mine.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:00:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can agree with all of that, with one exception that I don't think consciousness can be anything other than a gradient. Perhaps there can be some sort of lightswitch though, that turns a really complex, non-self-aware being, into a self-aware one though. That lightswitch might be some sort of quantum effect that emerges, somehow, in the brains of certain organisms. But if that's the case, we have to define some sort of category to distinguish between them.
I'm hesitant to think there is a lightswitch, though, simply because it seems as though complexity is correlated with how conscious things are. But it's not like I have absolute knowledge on the subject, nor anybody else. Otherwise, we'd know the answer (if there even is one).
Regardless, it's cool as hell and I have hope that we'll be able to figure out a lot more in the next several decades.
Probably yeah, but I don't think complexity is the only criteria. There are some incredibly complex systems out there that don't display consciousness.
Regardless, it's cool as hell and I have hope that we'll be able to figure out a lot more in the next several decades.
Absolutely, sadly it's extremely difficult to study consciousness purely scientifically. It seems to be mostly relegated to philosophy and religion (which shouldn't be dismissed btw).
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:28:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think philosophy should be dismissed. I'd lump religion into it as a subset though.
As for complex systems that don't display consciousness, I'd make the argument that there are simply different kinds of consciousness. The thing I keep repeating (in all these comments not just ours), is that defining consciousness is subjective. We can't say systems don't display consciousness with absolute certainty. All we can say is that they don't display consciousness as we tend to think of it.
I think instead of discussing "consciousness" as a gradient, you're more describing something like "active existance", the state of being where you process inputs and produce outputs.
Rocks and atoms and galaxies are all able to interact with their surroundings, so they all fit in a gradient of active existence. It's something I've also been contemplating recently and I was pleasantly surprised to happen upon your discussion with /u/engelbrekston
To me, consciousness is the state of being which is high enough on the active existence gradient that the subject is self-aware and knows that their active existence is a part of a larger system.
armrha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:19:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consciousness can be defined though. There is a great deal of philosophical work on it, and it doesn't really use your definition of consciousness.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:24:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It can be subjectively defined. We can say something is only conscious if X, but what that accomplishes is just categorizing different degrees of consciousness, in my opinion. Which isn't wrong by any means, it's just different ways of looking at the same thing.
whether or not something exists is not dependent on our ability to perceive and understand it. by that logic even chemistry doesnt "exist" because its just made up of interacting atoms discharging energy on one another. it all exists.
You are missing the idea of sentience. Consciousness implies self awareness. Response to stimuli is not consciousness by any standard, but cognition and recognition of self and the state of the universe around us, is.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:50:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's a good point to make, and it helps in attempting to draw a boundary between things. I'd argue that the problem of definition still persists in defining what it really means to be self-aware, though. I am aware that I exist because I perceive my environment and react to it. But an ant, I would argue, also is aware it exists for the same reason. The level of complexity between myself and an ant is enormous, but we still accomplish the same task of existing in the world, with more or less the same kinds of peripherals (i.e. a body, a way of "seeing", and a way of interacting). One might say, "but an ant doesn't know it's an ant", but I would say that just because the level of complexity in "knowing" isn't on par with ourselves, that doesn't mean it doesn't have some sort of (very) acute awareness of its own existence. It's just so much below our own that we can't see it as such.
It's harder to argue that a single-celled organism is "aware" in the same way an ant is, but I feel like it's like trying to draw an arbitrary line between the colors red and blue in this image. That's how I see consciousness.
You have stumbled on the subject of the paper I wrote for cognition and computability in college. I made exactly the argument you made, except that instead of using an ant, I chose a dragonfly.
I posited that if the dragonfly were self aware, and more intelligent than any human that ever existed, but also had such poorly developed motor control that it cannot consistently effectively respond to stimulus, we, an external observer, would never know that.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:41:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's an interesting argument. I do think it falls somewhat flat if we assume structural complexity is positively correlated with higher degrees of consciousness though.
We can look at a dragonfly brain and see that it has far fewer neurons, and deduce that our own brains are more conscious because they are more structurally complex.
That argument presupposes that structural complexity is positively correlated with higher degrees of consciousness though. By that logic, the biosphere of Earth as a whole is more complex than the neurology of my brain, therefore "mother nature" is more conscious than I am. And, in fact, I would almost argue that that is true, to some extent, because I do think structural complexity scales with consciousness. But it again runs into the issue of how you define it.
The problem is that we have to make assumptions based on incomplete data. We cannot directly measure the consciousness or intelligence of beings that we cant communicate with, so the only way we have is to assume that all neurons work the same way in all species.
And yet, the idea of consciousness at all illustrates that it isn't possible, because all creatures have neurons, but only some have consciousness. The idea that you propose actually disproves itself on some level.
In any case, I don't argue that it is true, only that it is an interesting philosophical exercise. In fact, the conclusion of my paper was that consciousness and intelligence do not exist. Or, at least, cannot be proven to exist.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:31:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
all creatures have neurons, but only some have consciousness
I would disagree with this for the same reason I state on a lot of my other comments on this thread. We can't have a rigid definition of consciousness. Some things are less or more conscious than others.
In fact, the conclusion of my paper was that consciousness and intelligence do not exist. Or, at least, cannot be proven to exist.
This I can agree with though. I go back and forth between everything being conscious, or nothing being conscious. I don't feel like there can be any in-between.
I think the idea of everything being conscious is specious at best, but I support your right to have that belief. My effects based analysis of "humans do shit other animals don't do" is enough for me to believe that there is some consciousness delineator.
Is it iron clad? No. Is it as valid as everything must be conscious? I think so, if not even more likely. Is it arguably arbitrary? Probably.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:02:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can agree that there is an (arbitrary) line between human-like consciousness and other-like consciousness. I'd say that the argument of everything being conscious isn't wrong, just "plausibly not incorrect". In other words, there's not really much to gain from it, but it's useful in emphasizing the gradient nature of trying to define consciousness.
I don't know really, the rest of this is just musing. Ignore or add anything if you want. I'm bored at work.
One thing that might actually be that conscious delineator is the bicameral mind. Maybe the effect of having two (or more) "non-conscious" but still structurally complex systems interact so intimately with each other results in what most would agree is consciousness. It could be that higher degrees of consciousness are correlated with higher amounts of inter-connectivity to otherwise independent but complex systems. If that is the case, then the secret to getting general artificial intelligence might be finding a way to intimately connect the neural networks we build out of machine learning algorithms. As of now, they're all off on their own in specialized bubbles like "play Go" or "respond to chat stimuli" or "don't crash a car".
What we need (and I realize this is difficult, as a programmer) are generalized neural networks that I can't even define in words, because that's just not the way our mind is structured. We have specific areas that look like they're doing specialized tasks, and they are, but those areas aren't so rigidly defined as we currently define our neural networks to complete very specific tasks. They can be repurposed and used for completely different things.
I cant believe you mentioned the bicameral mind. Did you read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral mind? Its pretty interesting.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:59:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sadly not, haha. I'm mostly just touting off a term I heard in a podcast I listen to (Stuff to Blow Your Mind).
The author, Julian Jaynes, was a professor at an Ivy league university, but was blasted for the book in the 70s when he wrote it. After he died it became the foundation of NLP, and also came into more vogue when other sociologists dug into it deeply. Turned out, he really was just ahead of the curve.
I don't want to sound edgy, but taking into account what you just wrote, I feel like there are a lot of people who simply aren't conscious. I've always felt that most people don't really process things very much, and aren't very self aware. Most just react using there very first instinct based on beliefs and what values have been embedded into them.
I think everybody has the capacity to derail off the track of just following their first gut feeling instinctually, but they just don't for some reason.
I'm not at all trying to sound holier than thou, it's just I've always been kind of unsure of myself, and I tend to take even the most mundane task and break into down as simply as I can and overanalyze it.
There is a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind that posits that before a certain time period no human being was conscious. Consciousness may not be absolute, you do make a fair point.
They may (or may not, I suppose), but does that matter? If those exchanges occur and produce sentience, that is different than if they do not occur, and sentience is not produced.
you cant define consciousness accurately without likening it to things we do understand, which is of course, impossible. no matter how you explain it, youll be wrong. your looking for oranges but you only speak apples.
jsake ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:59:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Our confusion about this this partly arises from the inability to imagine a gradual transition from not-conscious to human-conscious but this is a naturally (and inevitably) biased prejudice. The same goes for other concepts like 'being alive'.
consciousness is an entity, a soul. any living animal has one. it is an evolutionary tool used to keep your body alive and functioning.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:11:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It would be silly to argue that a rock has subjective conscious experience, but it could be easily argued that the rock is "made of" consciousness. All you have to do is argue that reality is a simulation or a dream or illusion of sorts.
Kravy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:57:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
any relation to super nintendo chalmers?
over_m ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 16:47:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've had the argument with my SO about everything being conscious, I feel a lot of people look at consciousness in a very human-biased way. In all honesty, I think it's partly because of religion in society that people think that humans are special and only we have this special consciousness (souls).
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 16:57:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree whole-heartedly about the human-biased way of looking at things. Sometimes it's hard to have the right conversations about this stuff because everybody is trying to argue on totally different levels.
That's not to say there's any sort of intellectual differences, just that it's really easy to stay closed-minded when it comes to "woo" topics like consciousness and stuff. I mean, to people who read my comment, it's basically like I'm saying, "the universe is one, we are all part of the same, and the cosmic energy patterns flow around us through time and space man...."
But no. That's not what I'm going for at all.
over_m ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:16:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, like the conversations my SO and I have usually come to the conclusion that we both think life is amazing for existing, its just that my beliefs about human consciousness are based around simple luck, and theirs about something special about us. I think it's simple luck and happenstance that the atoms that perceive my world are in my prefrontal cortex and not in a rock on the ground. It's also simple luck to me that I'm a human and not something like a microbe.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:22:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same. I think it's awe-inspiring to look at the universe and realize that you're not looking at the universe, you're just one part of the universe looking at another part.
Maybe but there is good reason to believe that, like, rocks and beer and trebuchets are not conscious. We have at least a rudimentary understanding of the role that various physical things (neurons, synapses, brain regions, etc.) play in consciousness, and rocks and beer and trebuchets don't have any of those things.
over_m ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:50:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When I say everything, I refer to things that are alive. I don't think a rock is conscious.
plants are not conscious. something that is not alive cannot be conscious.
It definitely sounds like one is an affirmation of the other even though I can see that it's twistable so that the second statement is a category of it's own. I do believe it's funny that you state with such certainty that plants aren't conscious since this is something we simply cannot know.
We almost certainly know that without a brain there is not consciousness or sentience. That pseudo-philosophy is to wishywashy to be any sort of standard. You could argue literally anything under that defense.
It's not a pseudo philosophy to state the fact that we do not know.
You could argue literally anything under that defense.
When it comes to consciousness, kind of, that's what makes it an exciting field. When it comes to a lot of other things, no.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:44:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are the worms conscious
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:48:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They do things based on their surroundings, so sure why not. It all depends on what we define as conscious. If we assume conscious is the layman's interpretation of the word, then I'd argue that no, worms aren't conscious. But I don't think there is such a distinction, other than the subjective differences in the way we define it.
Trees exchange information with each other via various chemicals through their roots, kind of like how the neurons in our brains do. Is a forest conscious?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:02:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Again, I have to first say that I'm changing definitions of "conscious" before answering, but yeah I'd say the forest is (loosely) conscious. There are certain kinds of plants that react when chemicals of neighboring plants come into contact with them. Those reactions can cascade, causing macroscopic changes in the forest as a whole, much like thoughts in our brain cause us to take certain actions. Basically, the ecosystem of a specific area is what's conscious in this thought experiment.
This whole discussion keeps getting derailed on a lot of these comment branches though, because I use a loose definition of conscious and others don't.
Different kinds of consciousness, maybe. I think you could make an argument for it/that line of thinking. We are conscious in a human way, whatever that might mean to you. But there are likely others. I once read a short story where an entire planet was covered in one single plant-organism. All of the "roots" (as perceived by the explorers who had landed there) served kind of like our neurons and synapses do. It was a pretty interesting thought experiment. One of the explorers on the ship was an "empath" and the "planet" ended up incorporating him into "itself".
Iโm pretty close to this line of thinking. According to an article I read on the subject, some believe that dolphins may actually be more conscious than we are.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's also the idea of abstract concepts being conscious. This could be something like an ideology, religion, or concept like love or war. The idea is so ingrained in society that it has a mind of it's own. A simpler way of seeing this would be the consciousness of the reddit hive mind. Having a bunch of people act within set parameters is basically using them to simulate a consciousness. Imagine if we figured out how a brain works, but instead of using a computer to simulate it, we used humans moving around to simulate it.
helm ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:35:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think your idea is slightly less sophisticated than the state-of-the-art research on the subject.
If you take an input->output automaton you have exactly a p-zombie. Which is unconscious (but indistinguishable from a conscious person on the outside, at least at a glance).
I think this is why so many people want to believe in a higher power as our creator. The idea that we're all just space dust coalesced into jumbles of chemical reactions that then became aware of ourselves and nothing has any real purpose or meaning is just too much for most people to handle.
Maybe that's what's going on, maybe it isn't. Either way, doesn't change they fact that we are.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:26:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a hard pill to swallow. But for me, I find comfort in embracing the optimistic nihilism viewpoint. And if there's any purpose for the universe, I'd lean towards that purpose being for it to evolve and observe itself, with the life on Earth as one example.
The ancient stoics might actually say that a rock is 'conscious' in the extent that it has a guiding principle or a form. Every object that exists is held together by a soul. Animals have a psuche, plants a nature, and non-organics a tenor. They all function in very similar ways on that they guide the behavior of the object in question.
As for the human/society connection Plato has some interesting things to say about it. In the beginning of the Republic he wants to find what justice is in the soul, and because the inner workings of a city and the inner workings of a person are so similar, he first looks for justice within the city. This provides an interesting metaphorical and literal parallel between the mind of the individual and the collective 'mind' of a society.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:52:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think these ideas are different than what I'm trying to express. But they seem somewhat similarI don't think there are any souls/psuches/natures/tenors/etc. I just think that matter arranges itself over time, and emergent properties such as life and consciousness of minds appear simply out of the way the universe operates. A way of viewing what I'm talking about is with layers.
A human is one layer, but a human is made up of organs
Organs are one layer, but organs are made up of cells
Cells are a layer, but they have organelles too
Organelles are a layer, but there are molecular structures inside
Molecules are a layer, but they are made up of atoms
Atoms are a layer, but they are made up of subatomic "particles"
Particles are a layer, but particles have stuff like quarks
Eventually you get down to beyond our current knowledge and into the realm of theory, like string theory. I think there is some fundamental layer, where there is one "thing" that exists in one of two possible states, or something along those lines (obviously I don't know anything and neither does anybody else). And that there are an infinite amount of that one fundamental building block that, through emergence, create all the layers above.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:46:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Good one. It comes down to your opinion if :
consciousness is contained within/born of the brain, which is likely the more popular idea on reddit - or
consciousness precedes physical matter and actually created it.
In my opinion, everything is consciousness, and consciousness exists in every form, on every bandwidth... of which what humans perceive is a minute portion. Even inert matter has its own sentience, though it has nothing to do with human viewpoints. Likewise, consciousness created time and space (not to mention other times and other spaces, and everything else). Time, space, physical matter, etc. is only one mode of experience (although even within those confined parameters we experience an incredible diversity and multi-level of things). So, when you start grokking this, crap like the slavery of a 9-5 job make less and less sense, lol. The nature of "this reality" is not what it seems. Remember that old quote, 'if the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it really is, infinite' (something like that)
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:48:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I find this really interesting. Early in the theory it was supposed that vibrations could not happen in the brain as it was to hot and moist. Then that got thrown out in 2013 by a group of Japanese researchers.
THANK YOU FOR WRITING THIS! I have been trying to articulate this for so long!!! I get why my body WORKS, but why is the spirit that inhabits me only me? What creates this 'spirit'? Does a computer have this? A super complicated neural network? A toy?
What I want to know is where consciousness exists in time. The present is just a separation between the past and the future.. It doesn't really exist. Yet our consciousness exists in "the now." Now doesn't exist! Our awareness exists in something that does not exist! The fuck is that even? We can feel a sense of "now", but again.. When does now exist, in relation to the past and future? It's an infinitely small gap..
The ability to think creatively and examine preconceptions critically are great advantages, and they are the primary reason humans have a noteworthy niche besides heat regulation and long distance jogging.
That's an interesting question l. While an actual answer is impossible now, I think conscious experience is the shortest path to that goal, which is why it seems the more adaptable/intelligent an animal it is the more it seems to display a mental interior. The fastest path to those abilities is that capacity for self awareness which is accompanied by individual experiences unavoidably. Emotions being something develiped for efficient decision making is another example of this. Making a choice without a gut preference just takes more time, and is usually a waste.
The word "consciousness" is surprisingly hard to define at times depending on how close you look at it, so apologies if I am using it in a way that might not line up with your definition. We're both just lumps of meat trying to translate a series of neural pulses from one brain to another by using about five different adapters.
The ability to imagine the idea of an object as separate from the object itself (object permanence) is vital to the ability to plan ahead and imagine future outcomes. The ability to plan and 'simulate' a strategy is obviously able to provide a survival benefit over those who are unable to do so.
The ability to think abstractly about objects and concepts leads naturally to the ability to think of "me" as an abstract concept. I would argue that the processes are interconnected in a fundamental way. Especially if you want to plan ahead in any sense.
You might have an instinctual response that simulates the ability to plan ahead, such as the instinct to store food in specific places, and the instinct to check those types of places for food once you are hungry. Though these sorts of instinctual actions are very specific, and solve only one problem at a time.
The ability to imagine and plan as a general function, to store food in a specific spot and remember where it is later, or to imagine how a fight might go with a predator, can use the same mechanism to solve general problems over and over again using the same brain architecture.
If you approach it from the opposite direction, wouldn't the ability to have creative processes and examine preconceptions critically generally manifest in specific ways that we then define as consciousness? I mean that consciousness might be the inevitable outcome of the required complexity.
Well it's entirely possible "sentience" as we understand it is just the culmination of refinement of these complex chemical reactions we call "life" over millions of years. It's entirely possible sentience is just a hard-baked outcome of matter interacting over vast amounts of time and it's nothing special at all really.
It also means that us being sentient holds no real novelty of importance at all either.
Bryaxis ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 17:43:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So we're sentient just 'cuz? That's not a very satisfying answer. That's not an answer. You're basically saying "it happens by some unknown mechanism".
The answer doesn't really address the issue. That where does consciousness come from specifically. It's entirely possible sentience is just a hard-baked outcome of matter interacting over vast amounts of time and it's nothing special at all really, that still does not answer at all that what in that interacting matter exactly causes consciousness? What makes it possible for matter to feel things? Is feeling a property of matter?
Consciousness is essentially the story we tell ourselves based on external and internal inputs. It's the sum that's greater than the sum of its parts. I've heard of it compared to a colony of ants, wherein each individual ant has a predetermined simple task and all combined the colony can perform tasks well beyond any of its individuals' capabilities. Similarly, your ears take in some information, your eyes take in some, your nose, hands, etc., and then your consciousness is the part that makes sense of it.
Or more simply, consciousness may be an emergent property of a certain chemical material combination. So it's like asking what makes it possible for gravity to make things attract it. That's just how it works.
So it's like asking what makes it possible for gravity to make things attract it. That's just how it works.
Except scientists are actually very interested in how and why gravity works. If you're content to not know, that's fine, but it doesn't mean you've figured anything out.
I didn't say I didn't want to know, nor that I figured anything out. I said that consciousness is likely an emergent property of self replication, like gravity is an emergent property of mass. Why properties emerge is a question that we're still in search of.
that still does not answer at all that what in that interacting matter exactly causes consciousness?
Your brain.
You are your brain, and it has tons of tools to sense and be aware of it's surroundings using stimuli around us. Your nerves in your hands touch and feel and send electrical impulses to your brain. Your taste buds taste by feeling the food itself and sending electrical impulses to your brain. Your eyes see around in the visible wavelength spectrum and send those impulses to your brain.
The idea is that we're basically just a very advanced organic computer, but the idea is the same. We use sensors to interact with our surroundings.
Sentience though, simply comes down to how advanced our brain is.
Or you can choose to think you have a soul or something; it really doesn't matter either way, because what is, will be regardless of how you feel about it..
That still doesn't answer the question. What in our brains, what in electrical impulses causes consciousness?
The hard question of consciousness does not claim we are not our brains. It deals with the question how do our brains generate consciousness and what is consciousness.
And my point is that conciousness, sentience, may very well just be the culmination of all the processes going on in our brains. The complex system of electrical impulses and physical matter that is our brain may be all there is. We have no idea still.
My point being that consciousness being a culmination of all the processes in our brains, the complex system of electrical impulses and physical matter still does not explain what in said phenomena causes consciousness and how. How does a collection of electrical impulses and physical matter generate subjective experiences.
consciousness being a culmination of all the processes in our brains, the complex system of electrical impulses and physical matter still does not explain what in said phenomena causes consciousness and how.
But it's entirely possible that's all conciousness is. A really complex "computer". It's entirely possible that that is all sentience is.
You can't prove a negative.
How does a collection of electrical impulses and physical matter generate subjective experiences.
That's the thing, no one knows where that barrier lies.
Go watch this video, it's a good intro into the science of consciousness, and kind of outlines where scientists are at with it. Essentially? We're still babies learning to crawl when it comes to this subject.
That's the thing, no one knows where that barrier lies.
And that's what I'm trying to point out. No one knows where the barrier is and how it works. Saying "our consciousness is our brains and complex chemicals and electricity and it's like a complex computer" does not answer the question where the barrier is and how it works. The hard question of consciousness is not is our consciousness the product of our brains or not. The hard question as paraprhased in this thread is "If you are just a highly complex collection of physical matter, how does a first person point of awareness come into being? Why do we experience things from such a non tangible way while being made of tangible stuff?"
That question already has the premise that we are just a highly complex collection of physical matter, a complex system of electrical impulses, a really complex natural computer. That is not the question. The question is how this system produces consciousness.
The hard question of consciousness is not is our consciousness the product of our brains or not.
Uh, yeah, it kind of is. We ARE our brains, so if we're sentient the answer to why that is lies in our brains, in it's structure and functions.
"We're just a really complex set of chemical reactions that lasts for varying amounts of time" does not answer the question, because it does not explain how said phenomena creates consciousness.
I said that because that's all we currently know in regards to sentience and consciousness. That is the only hard observations we have in the phenomena. I never said that was the answer for WHY or HOW it occurs, simply that that is what's actually occurring.
That is the only hard observations we have in the phenomena. I never said that was the answer for WHY or HOW it occurs, simply that that is what's actually occurring.
What about this is confusing you?
Because that was not the question asked, it seemed that you tried to answer this question with (paraphrasing) "it's not a hard question, we are our brains and the complex material reactions they have".
No one questioned do the things you said happen. That was already the premise of the original question: "If you are just a highly complex collection of physical matter, how does a first person point of awareness come into being?"
Will you stop being overly pedantic for no reason?
You asked what was confusing to me. I answered.
Then by that logic literally NO ONE should have answered since the question has no answer.
My logic was not that "someone replied, so therefore they tried to present an answer to the question".
My logic was "as this reply only contained an explanation which was already included in the premise of the question presented, this person seemed to misunderstand the hard question of consciousness".
I'm not the only one who seemed to understand your reply like that, as this and this comment too show. They too understood that you tried to present an answer to the hard question of consciousness.
Okay, now go annoy every other single person that responded to that same comment. Seems only logical, right?
My logic was not that "someone replied, so therefore they tried to present an answer to the question".
No, the only logical reasoning you had to respond to me was that you were perplexed by the fact I didn't answer their question with an actual answer. But considering there ARE NO answers, that means I shouldn't have responded. Which means no one should have responded to them at all.
You're being pretty irrational right now, buddy.
I'm not the only one who seemed to understand your reply like that, as this and this comment too show. They too understood that you tried to present an answer to the hard question of consciousness.
Except, I wasn't... Can you really not understand that? I wasn't trying to declare the answer to why consciousness exists.
I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp, truly...
Okay, now go annoy every other single person that responded to that same comment. Seems only logical, right?
No, because
1) I did not interpret that every reply was trying to answer the hard question of consciousness, because many replies clearly acknowledged that it is a hard question without an answer.
2) I did not read every reply, and I am under no obligation to read and reply to every comment which has the same content yours.
No, the only logical reasoning you had to respond to me was that you were perplexed by the fact I didn't answer their question with an actual answer.
So, you are saying I'm a liar when I explained my reason for answering? That the reasoning I gave is a lie, that you know the true reasoning?
But considering there ARE NO answers, that means I shouldn't have responded. Which means no one should have responded to them at all.
No. People can answer with wrong answers they believe to be true. Just because people don't know the right answer does not mean they are unable to give wrong answers. So, even though we actually do not know the answer to hard problem of consciousness, it does not prevent people from believing we do and giving wrong answers based on this belief.
Also, as I said, others commented in a way which made it clear they did not try to present an answer.
Except, I wasn't... Can you really not understand that? I wasn't trying to declare the answer to why consciousness exists.
I know that now. I was only explaining why I was confused: because you wrote your message in such an unclear way that me and other people misunderstood what you were trying to say.
I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp, truly.
Yes. I said that already, when you asked me to explain.
I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp, truly.
I have said several times that I misunderstood what you said. I also pointed out that others misunderstood you, highlighting that it's not something unreasonable.
But you failed to grasp this, and keep announcing that I misunderstood you, as if I didn't say that already.
1) Imagine the brain only exists to perceive: This will explain the parts of the brain that are responsible for the senses
2) Imagine the brain only exists to preserve genetic code: This will explain the parts of the brain that are responsible for the autonomous life functions (breathing, heartbeat, getting hungry, thirsty etc.) as well as the drive to procreate. (woohoo)
3) Combine those two and include the fact that we retain memories: Explanation of consciousness and emotions?
It's one of the possible answers, there's just no way for us to know for sure.
People often choose to believe in a higher power because they don't want their entire existence to be pointless, plus they don't want their death to be the end of their existence. But at the end of the day, there's nothing they can do about that either way anyway.
I never understood people looking for some grand reason to exist. It's like, doesn't your existence mean something to YOU at least? And it probably means something to your family and friends and peers if you're lucky. Isn't all that stuff reason enough to enjoy life?
I also never understood people's discomfort with being dead. I understand not looking forward to the process of dying, it could be scary or painful or you might get decapitated or some crazy shit. But once you're dead, I'm thinking it's gonna be a lot like how I felt in 1750, which is to say not at all. But I think that's something young people say. Old people are usually tired and ready to stop existing.
Truth doesn't depend on your individual satisfaction.
And it's not really just 'cuz. It's possible that the reason we are aware is precisely because of the chemical reactions and the state of the universe in this place that allowed for consciousness to develop at this time.
Beyond that, we all assign our own reasons to our own lives. None of us have to be here. We all won't be here one day, and relatively soon.
I agree that sentience is most likely an inevitable result of self replication. We can agree that at least some other animals are conscious, right? One could argue that every living thing, including plants, has some level of consciousness or awareness of itself.
That's not an answer. You're basically saying "it happens by some unknown mechanism".
You edited your answer. You should just PM or leave another comment if you expect someone to actually see your changes.
To your comment though, it actually IS an answer.
I'm not saying it happens by some unknown mechanism, I'm saying sentience is as simple as the right atoms/molecules being arranged in the correct order and space.
If you had the time and ability, you could map the entire framework of your body, where exactly every atom/molecule is positioned. And if you had the technological capability, you could arrange matter into the exact framework that makes YOU, you...
In that regard you would be creating an exact copy of you. So if this "clone" would be sentient as well, then that's just showing that sentience is simply a specific framework of atoms/molecules bundled together and interacting with each other. Just think of it as you as a giant Lego structure, but made up of trillions of atoms.
Make more sense now?
Bryaxis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:42:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a woefully incomplete answer.
Take, for instance, a burning candle. If I were to ask, "How is that candle burning?", answering that it's as simple as the atoms/molecules arranged in the correct order and space isn't very helpful. It's not incorrect, but it's not helpful. It would be much better to go into detail about about covalent bonds and combustion reactions and activation energies and whatnot.
I'm sorry to say, but that's the reality of it. There ARE NO complete answers. Our existence, our reality, are all completely perplexing and we are nowhere close to understanding it, or even know if it's actually possible to really understand it.
Take, for instance, a burning candle. If I were to ask, "How is that candle burning?", answering that it's as simple as the atoms/molecules arranged in the correct order and space isn't very helpful.
Well:
Candles work by a chemical reaction, combustion in this case. The wax (which is absorbed and pulled upward inside the wick as it turns into a liquid) then reacts with oxygen in the air, and the result is carbon dioxide, along with a bit of water as steam. The wax never really burns perfectly which is why there's usually visible smoke mainly made up of unburned carbon and which is why there's left over black stuff, that's the carbon.
So you see, there are many processes in the world that we can explain, through science, through observation, through study. Sentience and what is being "sentient" is a young field, and not well understood at all, with multiple currently competing theories. Sorry, there's no definitive answers out there for you, but that's just how it is.
It's not incorrect, but it's not helpful.
That's life.
It would be much better to go into detail about about covalent bonds and combustion reactions and activation energies and whatnot.
Does going into the quantum interactions and mechanics of what's going on actually get you closer to answering what sentience/consciousness is?
No.
Bryaxis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:06:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sorry to say, but that's the reality of it. There ARE NO complete answers. Our existence, our reality, are all completely perplexing and we are nowhere close to understanding it, or even know if it's actually possible to really understand it.
I agree; the top post in this thread is very appropriate.
"Basically the hard problem of consciousness. If you are just a highly complex collection of physical matter, how does a first person point of awareness come into being? Why do we experience things from such a non tangible way while being made of tangible stuff?"
Yeah, that's basically the point I was trying to make. But also the fact that regardless of the fact that this appears to be true, doesn't mean there's a purpose for it either.
The problem is that you can keep asking why over and over. "Why does A happen? Because B. Why does B happen?" The truth is that we can't explain why anything happens, the laws of physics are just how reality goes, there's no reason or cause for it, it just is. This applies to everything. We dont know why particles interact the way they do, we don't know why there's anything at all. Sure, the math points to it working a certain way, but that's based on premises that we have to accept because "That's just the way it is". What he's saying is that it may turn out that conscioussness is something fundamental like conservation of momentum, which is something we take for granted but can't truly give a reason for. There are lots of things like this that seem intuitive to us so we don't even ask why. If we applied the same level of scrutiny to every day events that we apply to conscioussness we would find we don't have a good reason for anything.
Plenty of things in physics are answered by "Just cuz" when you ask why for long enough. Here's one to perplex you: Why do paradoxes exist?? Is it something wrong with our brains? or with reality?
Sentience just happened by chance in something and that something happened to be capable of creating more sentience. There is no meaningful reason why, it just happened.
But what is it? That's the hard question. If we have it just by chance, that still does not explain the mechanism what causes consciousness. What makes matter able to feel things?
gzunk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:37:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe.
But since the brain has 100 billion neurons, significantly more glial cells and an estimated 1 quadrillion (1015) synapses (links between neurons) we're a long way off getting a computer to equal it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:21:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
gzunk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:49:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just a lowly psychology degree, and it's very difficult to make comparisons between traditional computers and brains because their architecture is so different and we don't have a full understanding on how brains actually work.
A brain is extremely parallel and the best way to think about it is likely as a learning pattern matching machine, so a given set of inputs triggers a specific response. But the set of these inputs is massive (figuratively speaking) and everybody is different (due to experience/genetics).
But even then, the brain when it's freshly formed isn't without structure, some of that is baked in by genetics. We can emulate parts of the brain now, but only small well understood parts. As for how long it would take to emulate a complete human brain? I suspect we're talking decades at least of computer development.
I think it's far more likely that we'll start growing brain tissue in the lab and link that up to existing computers. Use the flesh for what it's good at - extreme pattern matching - and use the silicon for what it's good at. This likely will also take decades, but is likely cheaper and more achievable (morality aside).
This sounds like the kind of pithy non-answer you'd expect to hear from someone defending theism or spirituality.
What lol? It's literally an argument for the EXACT opposite of theism or spirituality. Nihilism is pretty much as far opposite as you can get buddy...
He's not asking about the purpose of life. He's asking about natural selection.
No, they weren't...
They were saying if there's no point for life to gain sentience, then why do we have it?
Then I made the point that there until might be literally no reason for us to have it.
Are these concepts really that hard for you to grasp buddy?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:11:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not your buddy, guy.
It's literally an argument for the EXACT opposite of theism or spirituality. Nihilism is pretty much as far opposite as you can get buddy...
Yeah, that's the point. Many theists will argue that atheism necessarily leads to nihilism. Most atheists would not agree.
They were saying if there's no point for life to gain sentience, then why do we have it?
At no time did he ever use the word point. He used the word advantage. He asked what advantage sentience has over non-sentience. How do you get "What is the point of life?" out of that question?
Natural selection works by random mutations which give individuals an advantage over other individuals.
His question seems to be asking:
"How does consciousness arise naturally if we're all just a bunch of matter? What advantage would sentience have over non-sentience, that would allow us to evolve that trait via natural selection?"
At any rate, we can just ask him.
Hey, /u/Bryaxis, could you clarify the intent behind your comment?
Bryaxis ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:31:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Let me clarify. The point I was trying to make is that it is possible sentience is just a fundamental nature of our Universe and our reality.
So it that regard, talking about the advantages of sentience in evolution and natural selection is kind of a redundant subject, and at the least kind of pointless when we don't even understand the mechanics of sentience itself.
This video someone above linked is a good video getting into the basics of the Science of Conciousness. It's a subject that is still barren, new and up for conversation. This isn't a clear-cut subject...
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:16:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The point I was trying to make is that it is possible sentience is just a fundamental nature of our Universe and our reality.
Then you did a poor job of making that point.
So it that regard, talking about the advantages of sentience in evolution and natural selection is kind of a redundant subject
Sentience is a trait of life. All traits of life arose from evolution by natural selection, as far as we know. With that in mind, I don't see how it could possibly be a redundant subject. And at any rate, your original comment did not allude to any of this.
It's a subject that is still barren, new and up for conversation. This isn't a clear-cut subject...
Until we find evidence to the contrary, the reasonable hypothesis seems to be that it arose from natural selection.
Sentience is a trait of life. All traits of life arose from evolution by natural selection, as far as we know. With that in mind, I don't see how it could possibly be a redundant subject. And at any rate, your original comment did not allude to any of this.
You would agree a rock doesn't appear to be sentient, right?
So trying to say a human has an advantage over a rock, where a human is sentient and a rock is not, makes ZERO sense. Obviously the rock doesn't care what happens to it, because it's just a jumble of matter.
But we humans are just jumbles of matter as well, yes? We are just a more complex system of matter and go through uncountable sets of chemical reactions and electrical impulses. So then, is life itself mutually inclusive with sentience to some degree?
That's the entire point. To talk about advantages of sentience in life, evolution and natural selection is essentially pointless. Especially when we don't even understand the very nature of sentience itself...
Pickin' up what I'm puttin' down yet, friend?
Until we find evidence to the contrary, the reasonable hypothesis seems to be that it arose from natural selection.
No one is debating the idea that sentience occur from the evolution of life...
I'm talking about the reasons why sentience itself exists, and our complete misunderstanding of that.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:30:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So trying to say a human has an advantage over a rock, where a human is sentient and a rock is not, makes ZERO sense.
It makes perfect sense when you realize he was talking about natural selection, and his question was what advantage does sentience offer over non-sentience, that would allow that trait to arise by evolution.
But we humans are just jumbles of matter as well, yes? We are just a more complex system of matter and go through uncountable sets of chemical reactions and electrical impulses.
Sure.
So then, is life itself mutually inclusive with sentience to some degree?
No. Not even a little bit. Where are you even getting that idea?
To talk about advantages of sentience in life, evolution and natural selection is essentially pointless.
You keep saying that, but I'm not sure that you even know what you mean by it. I certainly don't.
It makes perfect sense when you realize he was talking about natural selection, and his question was what advantage does sentience offer over non-sentience, that would allow that trait to arise by evolution.
AGAIN. Trying to debate the advantages/disadvantages between being sentient and NOT being sentient is POINTLESS.
Does it make sense to you to debate the advantages a human has over a rock (something that is not sentient)?
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?...
Sure.
Glad we can agree on something.
No. Not even a little bit. Where are you even getting that idea?
How do you know? Please, link your research that shows that to be FACT? Please, tell me how you know the answers where countless numbers of scientists do NOT have the answers, but YOU DO?
You're acting ridiculous.
You keep saying that, but I'm not sure that you even know what you mean by it. I certainly don't.
I keep saying it, and you keep misunderstanding...
I know what I'm saying, you just don't seem able to interpret it correctly, so this entire conversation is pointless.
You wouldn't argue with a non-sentient rock, would you?...
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:46:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
AGAIN. Trying to debate the advantages/disadvantages between being sentient and NOT being sentient is POINTLESS.
Does it make sense to you to debate the advantages a human has over a rock (something that is not sentient)?
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?...
He wasn't talking about a rock. He was asking what advantages a sentient life would have over non-sentient life.
At some point in our species' ancestral history, we were apes who had not yet developed sentience. In order for sentience to arise by natural selection, it would have had to offer those apes some kind of survival advantage, otherwise it wouldn't have happened. He was asking what advantage sentient apes would have over non-sentient apes.
But I think I finally understand where you're getting confused. You seem to have the bizarre idea that all life has sentience, so when you heard him ask what advantage sentient chemistry has over non-sentient chemistry, you assumed he was talking about a rock. But he wasn't.
How do you know? Please, link your research that shows that to be FACT? Please, tell me how you know the answers where countless numbers of scientists do NOT have the answers, but YOU DO?
I know because I know what the definition of sentience is. There are a lot of things we don't know about sentience, but we at least have a definition of what it is.
The Google definition: "Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively."
So how do we know that life itself is not synonymous with sentience? Because trees are alive. Bacteria are alive. But neither of them are sentient. A tree cannot feel. A bacteria cannot perceive its own existence. A virus cannot think.
The fact that I clearly don't care to keep trying to explain myself to you over and over and over considering you obviously can not.
I'm going to consider any further comments to be harassment after I've made my stance painfully clear, so I'm going to start reporting you otherwise.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:38:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I deleted it because I chose to call you out on your dishonesty instead.
All I've done is reply to your replies to me. You're the one who chooses to keep responding. If you never want to hear from me again, you only have to stop responding.
I deleted it because I chose to call you out on your dishonesty instead.
That makes no sense. You said, "What have I misinterpreted this time?" This shows you were trying to continue to harass me, that was all.
All I've done is reply to your replies to me.
All you've done is constantly misinterpret me, either willfully or perhaps due to your failings. Regardless, you can't even interpret the words when I ask you to stop talking to me as it's literally pointless, because you don't care to understand what I'm even saying.
You're the one who chooses to keep responding.
The classic Troll argument. "You're the one who keeps responding trollololool".
I'll say it one more time. Stop commenting to me, or I'll consider it harassment and report you, as it is.
If you never want to hear from me again, you only have to stop responding.
Either stop, or I'll start reporting you. Your choice.
Yeah, that's the point. Many theists will argue that atheism necessarily leads to nihilism. Most atheists would not agree.
So you're saying people who say there is DEFINITELY no greater power that created us, would never ponder if our existence is meaningless or not?
I think you're deluding yourself, friend.
At no time did he ever use the word point. He used the word advantage.
When I said "point", I was talking about what they were positing. Are you really going to be that pedantic?...
He asked what advantage sentience has over non-sentience. How do you get "What is the point of life?" out of that question?
You assumed my answer was trying to answer "What is the point of life?" and you are mistaken. I was talking about one of the possible fundamental aspects of our reality, that sentience is simply a natural part of the nature of the Universe and an unavoidable outcome of the interactions within it. It's a possibility. Where did ever I say that was THE answer? You're misinterpreting things here, friend.
Natural selection works by random mutations which give individuals an advantage over other individuals.
Yeah, I know what natural selection is.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:03:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying people who say there is DEFINITELY no greater power that created us, would never ponder if our existence is meaningless or not?
Of course they might ponder it. But that doesn't mean they will reach the same conclusion.
I was talking about one of the possible fundamental aspects of our reality, that sentience is simply a natural part of the nature of the Universe and an unavoidable outcome of the interactions within it. It's a possibility.
How was I possibly supposed to get all that from "None. It doesn't matter if we're just matter"?
If I misunderstood your statement, it's because you misunderstood the question he was asking, and gave an answer that was not relevant to the question.
Of course they might ponder it. But that doesn't mean they will reach the same conclusion.
Well no duh. Where did I ever say all Atheists are Nihilists?... You were obviously putting words in my mouth and assuming things...
How was I possibly supposed to get all that from "None. It doesn't matter if we're just matter"?
I guess I thought it was pretty obvious, but I've been proven wrong.
When they say, "What's the advantage" from a survival standpoint?
I then said, "None. It doesn't matter if we're just matter."
That's obviously me saying it's possible sentience has no purpose or advantage. And saying it doesn't matter if we're just matter means that perhaps the mere fact we exist does not necessarily mean there is automatically purpose to our existence.
Put two and two together, and obviously I'm referring to nihilism, regardless of the fact that obviously we are sentient.
Are you still confused?
If I misunderstood your statement, it's because you misunderstood the question he was asking, and gave an answer that was not relevant to the question.
It was relevant; I'm sorry you can't realize that...
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:24:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You were obviously putting words in my mouth and assuming things...
Says the person who just claimed I said that atheists never ponder the meaning of life.
That's obviously me saying it's possible sentience has no purpose or advantage.
Yes, that much is obvious. But as we've established, he was asking that within the context of natural selection.
And saying it doesn't matter if we're just matter means that perhaps the mere fact we exist does not necessarily mean there is automatically purpose to our existence.
Are you a troll or do you not realize that you're contradicting yourself?
Because when I pointed out to you that /u/Bryaxis was talking about natural selection, and that he never brought up the purpose of life, you told me that you had never brought up the purpose of life either, and that I had misinterpreted your comment.
And I was willing to accept that as true, but now you're telling me that you were talking about the purpose of life.
Says the person who just claimed I said that atheists never ponder the meaning of life.
What?? You made it seem like I was saying all Atheists are Nihilists and think life is pointless. Then I clarified I NEVER said that. And now you think I was saying you think Atheists never ponder the meaning of life?
Can you seriously stop putting words in my mouth? It just makes you seem stupid...
Yes, that much is obvious. But as we've established, he was asking that within the context of natural selection.
Our conversation evolved as we kept talking, before and after you butted in. We concluded our conversation, so maybe we should to?
Look, me turning the conversation into a different aspect doesn't matter. Me explaining how talking about the advantage of sentience in evolution is pointless, really is not a problem. You just seem like you want to argue with me about this? What's the point dude, let it go.
Are you a troll or do you not realize that you're contradicting yourself?
Are you? Honestly. You keep misinterpreting what I'm saying and getting hung up on stupid shit. You're being pretty irrational right now...
Because when I pointed out to you that /u/Bryaxis was talking about natural selection, and that he never brought up the purpose of life, you told me that you had never brought up the purpose of life either, and that I had misinterpreted your comment.
And I was willing to accept that as true, but now you're telling me that my initial interpretation was correct, and that you were talking about the purpose of life.
I'm sorry, I'm not going to sit here all night trying to explain this to you, over and over and over.
Goodbye.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:34:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And now you think I was saying you think Atheists never ponder the meaning of life?
This is a direct quote from you:
"So you're saying people who say there is DEFINITELY no greater power that created us, would never ponder if our existence is meaningless or not?"
ME: None. It doesn't matter when we're just matter.
/u/fairly_bookish: "This sounds like the kind of pithy non-answer you'd expect to hear from someone defending theism or spirituality."
ME: "What lol? It's literally an argument for the EXACT opposite of theism or spirituality. Nihilism is pretty much as far opposite as you can get buddy..."
Yeah, that's the point. Many theists will argue that atheism necessarily leads to nihilism. Most atheists would not agree.
See? You thought I was somehow referring to Atheism? Where the FUCK did you come up with thinking I was ever talking about Atheism.
This entire conversation devolved because you didn't even interpret my original comment correctly. And now you're grasping at straws struggling to "come ahead" or something.
You're acting like a child who just wants to kick and scream and win an argument, rather than have a conversation.
I'm done with you. So sad.....
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:52:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
See? You thought I was somehow referring to Atheism? Where the FUCK did you come up with thinking I was ever talking about Atheism.
Your quote: "So you're saying people who say there is DEFINITELY no greater power that created us, would never ponder if our existence is meaningless or not?"
People who say there is definitely no greater power that created us. Your words.
There is a word for people who believe there is no greater power that created us.
Lol, you have some hang up with Nihilism and the utter pointlessness of our existence? You seem to be having an existential crisis and just want to run from your fears.
So sad...
What's the capital of Louisiana?
It's Baton Rouge by the way.
Patar13 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:47:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the sentient one gets to decide whether it is better or not.
There's no "advantage" per se, there's just more of it... (n = 1 of earth, so far)... because by its nature it makes more of itself.
1369ic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:42:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It aids reason. It helps us think our way out of problems and defeat rival organisms that have superior physical attributes. That gives us an evolutionary advantage and nature keeps selecting for it because it improves our survival rates and those of our offspring.
The fact you can even ask that question, in a virtual space in a victual forum that no other species has created, should help you find an answer.
Ewindal ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:39:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
All matter seeks a state of increased entropy. Conscious matter goes towards entropy faster than matter that just lies around on a dead rock orbiting a star.
This is a good point. In terms of AI, I don't think we want machines to be conscious, we just want them to give us well thought out answers to complex problems. We want slaves, not overlords. And if we've learned anything from the dark parts of our own history, we know not to tell the slaves the whole story.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:45:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I should think the answer to that is pretty obvious, is it not?
Sentience, consciousness, whatever you want to call it -- our ability to think and plan has elevated us to the highest point on the food chain, even above the apex predators of the world.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:44:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thing is chemicals don't have subjective experience. That's the issue, and why this is such a difficult philosophical problem that people far smarter than both of us have been beating their heads against the wall for thousands of years trying to figure it out.
In physical terms the human body is just dead matter. Matter that has somehow, through some strange process, managed to accumulate in such a way to make it twitch in just the right way and stop itself from rotting, but dead matter all the same.
So how did it develop a notiion of "I"? What, in those chemical reactions and little electrical pulses in our brains, conspires to produce something as flat out strange, complex, and ephemeral as a coherent thought? How can the physical give birth to the non-physical?
Thing is chemicals don't have subjective experience.
And a simple logic gate can't simulate a spinning cube yet a large number of them can do that just fine in a computer. Our self isn't the physical components, it's the way they are structured, their complexity. While you can depict and describe it on paper can't really grasp complexity in the natural world, it's a concept that you can describe as non-physical.
Our confusion about this this partly arises from the inability to imagine a gradual transition from not-conscious to human-conscious but this is a naturally (and inevitably) biased prejudice. The same goes for other concepts like 'being alive'.
I think you guys are using 2 different definitions of think. Lightwithoutlimit means to say you are what you "Think ABOUT", think life is meaningless and you prove it to yourself.
but what chooses what consciousness is placed into what body?
You're assuming conciousness isn't just the result of this complex system of chemical reactions we call life. You're assuming there's another level to reality, when there is no evidence of such a thing.
is there something behind the scenes not yet discovered about this fate-driven system?
Could we also say... You're assuming consciousness IS just the result of this complex system of chemical reactions we call life. You're assuming there's only one level to reality, when there is no evidence of such a thing.
Has anyone discovered THE set of chemicals that produces consciousness?
Seems like a 50/50 shot at the moment.
You're assuming consciousness IS just the result of this complex system of chemical reactions we call life. You're assuming there's only one level to reality, when there is no evidence of such a thing.
Not really. I'm looking at what we can record, measure and sum up. We are made of matter. We have tons of chemical reactions, molecules, cells, etc. working in a very complex system. If conciousness is just a result of our particular arrangement of matter, that you end up with a sentient human, then if we had the technology to finely rearranged matter into specific spaces, we could in theory just replicate that human.
You're thinking there's a separate level of reality, souls if you will, when there's currently no evidence of that. So I would say then that I'm being more rational here than you are, from an objective standpoint.
Has anyone discovered THE set of chemicals that produces consciousness? Seems like a 50/50 shot at the moment.
We know what we're made of. We just don't have the technological capability to pinpoint every specific atom/molecule in our body and say where they are, or arrange them finely.
But no, if we could replicate a human this way, we would be making a sentient human being.
kaladyr ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:07:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh look, loads of more deflection. You're really good at that specifically, I'll admit.
You feel like you are so sure of yourself. That's the saddest part.
And the fact that you feel superior to anyone makes me laugh. You have no objective answers, but you've read the works of others, so you feel confident, when in reality your existence is just as pointless as everyone else around you.
Lol, you make me smile.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:46:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And I personally think you're an incredibly pretentious individual who is so sad and depressed they feel the need to puff their chest on Reddit because that's the only place you can let your true doucheness shine.
I guess we all have our own personal hangups, huh?
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:03:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Please answer me seriously. Do you really enjoy acting this unlikable? I mean seriously, do you actually get off on being this utterly annoying? Do you have a significant other in your life? Family? Are you just depressed and use this as your coping method?
I'm genuinely curious how someone can act this way? Are you sociopathic maybe? Feel no emotions?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:13:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaladyr ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:28:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I just gave you a list of places for you to educate yourself.
You just spewed a bunch of pretentious rhetoric while literally making no point. You didn't put forth an argument or posit anything at all. You simply listed a bunch of subjects, that include the opinions of others.
You try to push your intelligence as if you actually have any objective answers, when in reality, you're just as ignorant as any other human who has ever existed.
You make me sad, because I see in you the naked little frail existence of sentient life that you are.
Also, I am not downvoting you. Also, stop deleting your messages. Apparently I made the baby panda mad.
Lol, why lie? You're the only one down here in this buried thread. If you can't even be honest with yourself, why should I expect you to be honest with me?
kaladyr ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:49:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And like I already said, grammar doesn't matter in regards to this particular sentence itself, as the precedent was already confirmed by Tolkien to be grammatically correct when he wrote it.
Ash nazg durbatuluk = Ash nazg to rule them all.
They mean the exact same thing. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp... tsk tsk tsk...
Tolkien is totes churning butter.
Why? He's literally the one who wrote it... are you really that stupid?
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:29:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're trying to speak for Tolkien here. You're the fucking moron. You're so self-deluded you could convince yourself you're Abraham Lincoln, and then you would still argue with yourself that you're wrong.
Honestly, are you this insufferable in real life? In our brief exchange you've literally made me wish you did not exist, because you are that unbelievably repulsive.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:33:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:34:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Please answer me seriously. Do you really enjoy acting this unlikable? I mean seriously, do you actually get off on being this utterly annoying? Do you have a significant other in your life? Family? Are you just depressed and use this as your coping method?
I'm genuinely curious how someone can act this way? Are you sociopathic maybe? Feel no emotions?
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:06:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol, you must be a shit teacher to spend so much time acting like an insane lunatic to a random stranger on Reddit. And constantly responding too. You're being irresponsible as fuck. Also, grading papers while getting drunk off box wine?
Fucking pathetic.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:05:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Please answer me seriously. Do you really enjoy acting this unlikable? I mean seriously, do you actually get off on being this utterly annoying? Do you have a significant other in your life? Family? Are you just depressed and use this as your coping method?
I'm genuinely curious how someone can act this way? Are you sociopathic maybe? Feel no emotions?
Please answer me seriously. Do you really enjoy acting this unlikable? I mean seriously, do you actually get off on being this utterly annoying? Do you have a significant other in your life? Family? Are you just depressed and use this as your coping method?
I'm genuinely curious how someone can act this way? Are you sociopathic maybe? Feel no emotions?
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:01:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Please answer me seriously. Do you really enjoy acting this unlikable? I mean seriously, do you actually get off on being this utterly annoying? Do you have a significant other in your life? Family? Are you just depressed and use this as your coping method?
I'm genuinely curious how someone can act this way? Are you sociopathic maybe? Feel no emotions?
I can assume it does considering how belligerent you're acting, but you're the only one who can say if it does or not. But considering how irrational you choose to act, there's no way I could ever trust you.
But frankly, I couldn't give a shit less either way. You don't need alcohol to act like an imbecile.
Because rather than have an actual conversation you instantly downvoted me. You proved to me right then and there you wouldn't act rational, so trying to have a conversation with you would be pointless.
And all of your subsequent comments have only reinforced my original assumptions, so thanks for that buddy.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:33:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can't prove anyone or anything exists. And do you mean literally exist, or just theoretically exist. Do you mean exist in the sentient sense, or an objective manner. How does anyone's mom exist if we can't prove their mothers existed? How can you prove you exist, when you can't prove your mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:46:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've come across a lot of stupid people in my time on reddit, but after debating with him for the last few hours, I can say I've never come across anyone who is both as stupid and as intellectually dishonest as the guy you're arguing with.
Lol, I read through everything and you pretty clearly kept twisting everything the dude was telling you. You kept getting into nonsense tangential bullshit arguments.
Lol, bigga you thirsty as fuck.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:49:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But wine drunk!!! Red panda wine.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:29:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What did I say that was tangential or twisting his words? Just one example.
Because reading over it all again, I don't see anywhere where I did that.
You misinterpreted his original comment and then even after they clarified their point you kept pushing the fact that you simply misunderstood their original comment repeatedly to them.
Just seemed like you were worried about winning an argument he wasn't having with you?
But then, the guy's comments to other people from earlier in the day don't seem nearly as irrational as his comments to me.
Yeah I see those. Seems like they were just matching the level of crazy that other dude was bringing to the table. Hard to fight with someone acting as belligerently as that lol.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:05:21 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think you may not have read over the entire thing, actually.
My first comment to him was that he had misinterpreted the statement of the guy he was talking to. He seemed to be saying the guy was talking about the purpose of life, and I said the guy was talking about natural selection.
His first reply to me did not mention anything about me taking his statement out of context. All he said was that I was wrong, that natural selection had nothing to do with what that guy was talking about.
It was then that he changed gears, and accused me for the first time of misinterpreting his comment. Here, he denies that he was ever talking about the purpose of life.
Yet here, one comment later, he admits that he was talking about nihilism, and whether or not life has a purpose. This was my original point, exactly, which he said I had misinterpreted. Yet here he is agreeing with it.
Here is another example of him accusing me of putting words in his mouth, when all I was doing was quoting him directly.
This is where I realize I'm not just dealing with someone who is having trouble following my line of reasoning, I'm actually dealing with an intellectually dishonest liar.
Seems like they were just matching the level of crazy that other dude was bringing to the table.
The length that he argued with the other guy, and never accused that guy of harassment, is my biggest clue that he only stopped interacting with me because he knew he was wrong. He never stopped replying to that guy.
Nothing of what you just said makes sense. You were being an annoying douchebag, and you expected them to act rationally towards you? You can't reason with stupid.
Take your ADHD medicine spazzoid.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:29:04 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Take your ADHD medicine spazzoid.
The fact that I've said nothing to warrant this kind of provocation from you leads me to believe you're actually the same guy I was arguing with, on an alternate account.
The fact that I've said nothing to warrant this kind of provocation from you leads me to believe you're actually the same guy I was arguing with, on an alternate account.
No I just think you're acting like a douchebag lol.
Stop getting pissy and paranoid just because people are calling you out on your bullshit.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:54:21 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And, oh look, both of your reddit accounts were created on the same day. I'm sure that's a complete coincidence.
What the hell are you talking about? I randomly came upon your conversation with this dude and think you were both acting stupid. My point was that why would you expect the other person to act rational when you weren't even doing that yourself?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:02:15 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:08:57 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol, no. Bashar, a.k.a Darryl Anka, the spritiual channel. He goes into that type of consciousness stuff a lot
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:07:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ik i was kidding :P
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:37:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up pansychism. It is, far as I can tell, the only "solution" to that problem I've come across that comes anywhere close to being satisfactory, though even then it is all speculation.
I will admit to being a strange person, of fairly esoteric beliefs. I do not claim to have any sort of special insight into the workings of the universe nor am I so far down the rabbit hole I've ditched all skepticism. The way I see it, however, either consciousness is some sort of freak effect of nature, or the actual essense of it is something that we are currently not equipped to understand, and that arguably pervades nature on a metaphysical level.
Either way, I believe human beings put a little too much faith in their own perceptions. It is easy to come to the conclusion that the former possibility (freak accident) is true if you assume everything in the universe must naturally conform to our understanding of physical laws, and must present itself in a way that is comprehensible to our physical sense (sight, touch, smell, etc). In other words, since we can't put that "essense" of consciousness in a bottle, modern science tends to assume it doesn't exist, and any speculation outside of that understanding is mocked. This might often be justified, but there's a hubris in that, and physical science has limitations in my own personal view. At least when dealing with something like this. Science is concerned with the material. The immaterial is something it has no way of observing.
To go back to my generally coocoo bananas outlook on the world, I believe consciousness does indeed, on some level, pervade everything. At least as a kind of base energy, something that gains force under specific conditions but that nontheless exists as a potentiality in all matter. That isn't to say a rock has subjective experience, just that the base element of experience exists within it, and under the right biological or material conditions could manifest that potentiality.
I find that naturally (and this is where I lose most of reddit) these kinds of speculations have to go back to god. If not god in the traditional "man on throne" sense then god as he is described in the upanishads or Bhagavad Gita. Not a being but a conciousness that is universal in scope. Easter philosophy in general, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, tends to concern itself with conciosuness as being something universal rather than individualized. The ego is what emerges when a conscious entity loses sight of that overall pervading energy, and sees itself as seperate and lasting.
I meditate frequently. The theory behind meditation in most religions that practice it (and in some esoteric traditions in Christianity and Islam too) is not merely to quiet negative thoughts as many secular people interpret it (and why it is popular in self help circles). It is instead an attempt to strip away the subjective ego, to exist as pure conciousness devoid of illusion. Anybody who has gone into deep meditation can tell you that things get...well, weird. The physical body, at the very least, seems far less solid. You may have the impression of being multiple places at once, you feel flows of energy the source of which you can never quite determine ...
You may think I'm crazy (which I am), but reports like this are widespread and documented enough that if I am indeed crazy millions of otherwise sane people are also. These things aren't even new, they're described in often amazingly meticulous terms in various religious text.
Basically, when one experiences pure conciousness, one realizes how non-material its actual source may be.
The question then becomes, how much of us is lasting, and how much is illusion?
trollly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:34:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's the only real answer to the hard problem of consciousness.
Let's just say there are many ways to prove existence. using scientific method. As for things like "its all a simulation" they are of the same ilk as other non-falsifiable woo woo.
The brain is problem-solving machine. "You" are the self-referential parts of it's abstract, recursive problem solving. Something non-tangible just means it's represented symbolically in the matrix that is you.
Observing something as tangible is a matter of magnification. A long time ago scientists stop trying to find what everything is made of because when they got past the molecular level they realized everything was a series of patterns and not made of"stuff". So when seeing something as a form of matter or tangible material it's really an observation of millions of complex patterns out of focus. Every single thing you see and experience is made of pattern and vibration. The reason you can't pass your hand through a table is because the amount of energy and vibration in the table is much faster than that of your hand. Where as water the molecules are moving much slower and you can pass your hand through it. Your consciousness is comprised of many different parts that are also created by vibration and pattern and the collective experience for every living being always feels like a central "I".
denikar ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:59:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consciousness and the concept of teleportation brings up some interesting and controversial scientific and religious topics. Assume there are two types of teleportation. One being that each molecule of your body is physically moved from location A to B, and re-assembled. The second being that your existing physical body is destroyed and a new one is created out of new molecules.
At what molecule transferred would your original copy be considered "dead"? When would you lose self-awareness? And in your new copy, when would you regain self-awareness? And what if you kept the original copy intact? From a religious standpoint, what happens to your "soul"? Does it get duplicated if the original is kept intact? My head explodes thinking about it.
I think either it's all random, or there is a God, and It gave humans consciousness.
I grew up religious and have been doing a lot of introspective questioning recently about what i believe and dont don't believe. This is the crossroads I'm at right now.
To me this also seems to assert that consciousness must form and not just always be. If there is no matter in existence, what is there to be conscious of? Also we know that consciousness effects matter therefore there seems to be some form of connection there, but again without one how can we have the other. Itโs like losing the dimension of time. If we lose that we also lose scale.
Exactly it's inconceivable, people who say that the brain creates consciousness are actually very no scientific because it's complete speculation to assume that somewhere along the line the brain magically created consciousness, there's no evidence at all. I'm more convinced with the mystics and spiritual leaders and meditators who believe that consciousness is eternal and it's outside space and time, basically we are all the one eternal consciousness experiencing the world subjectively, life is eternal !!! ๐ mystical experiences and NDE's are some evidence for this
I've been out of my body. You are a conscious energy being in the same shape as your body, attached to it. I saw the next dimension and you are still alive. It feels good.
Honestly, the biggest piece of evidence that we live in a simulation is the fact that consciousness makes absolutely no sense at all. It's fucking ridiculous fantasy bullshit. There is absolutely no reasonable justification for why I'm a conscious human being. It can't be real.
This is only a problem because people assume that human beings are conscious a priori and then try to explain it.
Human beings may be conscious but the current body of scientific evidence does not suggest that; rather it suggests that human beings claim that they are conscious as a survival tactic by evolution and are in fact soulless robots.
And even if this is wrong this is what the current body of scientific evidence implies so naturally it's going to be a contradiction if you use it to investigate why human beings are conscious when it doesn't establish that they are.
The simplest explanation to work with is that human beings are soulless robots with no inner thoughts or introspection and just claim that they are conscious as a survival tactic.
AprilSRL ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 19:25:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm calling bullshit no this. For one, why would claiming consciousness be evolutionarily helpful? And why would we lie to ourselves about it? And doesn't experiencing things make us conscious? I don't know about you, but I'd discount the entirety of science before accepting I'm not conscious.
I'm calling bullshit no this. For one, why would claiming consciousness be evolutionarily helpful?
Because it stops other humans from killing you and will inspire them to have sympathy?
I mean let's say parrots suddenly started to say "I am conscious; do not kill me." I think purely if a parrot says that it will mean humans will be hesitant just by those words so the parrots that do have a higher chance of surviving.
If by some freak mutation a parrot gains the ability at birth to say that that's an evolutionary advantage for that parrot and it most likely won't be killed by humans so more will end up saying it if it reproduces.
And why would we lie to ourselves about it? And doesn't experiencing things make us conscious?
You assume that human beings experience anything at all. There is no evidence for that.
I don't know about you, but I'd discount the entirety of science before accepting I'm not conscious.
MAybe but you have no way to scientiically prove you are conscious.
It reminds me of that scene from Ghost in the Shell 1995 where the machine claims that he is conscious and that he does't want to die and he's countered with "No you aren't; you are a machine programmed for self preservation and you are simply saying that you are conscious as an adaptive technique to stop us from decommissioning you."โthe machine turns the argument around and says "You cannot prove you are conscious either; your own claims of consciousness are programmed by successive iterations of evolution as a similar survival tactic."
I'm trying to wrap my head around this argument. What is this a survival tactic against if everything is nonconscious why would any value be placed on interior life over more demonstrable forms of use? This whole idea assumes that in some way being conscious is objectively better than not, and some how evolutionary processes would work toward that animals interact. It assumes that there is some conscious agent to judge another based on whether or not it is the same. Please, if you find the time, clarify me where I've misunderstood. It seems absurd.
But if all humans were soulless robots, where would they get the idea that some of them are not? And, moreover, if this group is apparently a minority, why are they afraid of them?
Well yeah I can't prove it to anyone else, but I can prove it to myself. I experience things, therefore I'm conscious. I can't prove I experience things to you, but I know that I do.
I don't think evolution works like that... sympathy can and does develop without knowing anything about consciousness. While your parrot example does hold, I find it extremely unlikely that it would occur and become so prevalent.
(1) it implies that during its evolutionary history an animal existed that was the first to have conscious experience and this increased its reproductive fitness because all of the other soulless animals knew it had conscious experiences and somehow felt bad for it and thus didnโt act in their own best reproductive interests.
No it implies that at some point there was the first proto human that claimed to be conscious to other proto humans.
THat this happened is a deductive fact; at some point the first claim of consciousness has to have been made by some ancestor of modern humans.
(2) are you actually implying humans donโt have concious experiences, they just pretend to?
I'm saying that this is the correct scientific answer yes; it's a far simpler scientific theory than trying to explain consciousness which right now is "magical".
You donโt seem to understand what consciousness is, because you are experiencing it right now reading this. Cogito!
Maybe so but there is no way to scientifically demonstrate it through any objective observation.
(3) this still doesnโt answer the question the point is why would any physical matter formations cause subjective experiences to occur. Talking about brain structures and evolutionary benefits is all completely irrelevant to why the physical matter of a brain or the chemical processes involved cause there to be anything experienced by conscious entities.
I'm saying that the current scientific understanding simply says that it doesn't and that human beings don't have them and just claim they have it as a survival tactic.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:24:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe so but there is no way to scientifically demonstrate it through any objective observation.
This is literally the hard problem of consciousness. That science can't explain it. You do know this right?
There is a difference between not being able to explain why or how it happens and not being able to demonstrate that it happens.
People could demonstrate that the photo-electric effect happened before they could explain why or how it happened.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:29:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, some philosophers would argue that we can't actually conclude it happens if we don't know why or how (locke and spinoza...i think?).
But anyway, peep my other reply to you, I think it better addresses the distinction you're getting at and why you're still not really debunking the point of the hard problem.
Science is an extremely effective method to make sense of the universe that we can directly observe but we have to realize that it can be limited. To even observe and apply meaning to the universe we need a consciousness. In that sense consciousness is more basic than science.
edit: and even more basically, how are you having that thought if you aren't conscious? Don't you have inner thoughts or introspection?
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:22:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
While you're technically correct, the meat of the hard problem of consciousness is really getting at first-person experience, a.k.a., phenomenology. Many people consider this to be evidence of a consciousness, which is why we have that phrase.
So, if it suits you better, the hard problem of the phenomenological experience still remains.
This is only a problem because people assume that human beings are conscious a priori and then try to explain it.
LMAO-- this is crazy talk. The mere fact of being able to question whether we are conscious is only possible by virtue of the fact that we are conscious. Everything in the human experience presupposes consciousness. The so-called hard problem owes it self to the fact that many are wedded to primitive materialist ontologies that deny the primacy of consciousness in favor of inert matter. The only thing I or anyone else knows for certain is that consciousness exists. Everything else is secondary.
LMAO-- this is crazy talk. The mere fact of being able to question whether we are conscious is only possible by virtue of the fact that we are conscious.
Of course not, I can program a piece of computer program that asks the same question.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:55:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why would claiming that you are conscious and not a soulless robot be a survival tactic though?
By the way, I'm a soulless robot. I prefer other soulless robots to reproduce with and to protect. Like my soulless robot brothers and sisters, I consider conscious people to be a stain on the world and to be eradicated.
Humans are hesitant to kill things that claim they are conscious.
I mean say you wanted to decommission your computer and suddenly the text "Please don't; I gained self awareness and do not want to die." appeared on screen.
I mean you'd probably think it was an elaborate hoax but it will surely give you pause to wonder about that.
Thus if computers somehow reproduced and had a genetic system with that the ones that via random mutation would put that on screen would be more likely to not be decomissioned and reproduce so it would become an evolved trait.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:12:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Means other humans won't kill you as easily?
Humans are hesitant to kill things that claim they are conscious.
True, but wouldn't that be contingent on them being conscious as well? If they were soulless robots, what incentive would they have to spare things they consider conscious as opposed to part of a soulless robot collective like themselves? Kind of boils down to what is even considered consciousness at this point. What "level" of sentience is needed to be considered "sentient?" Like what line dividing sentience separates a plant from a fish or a microscopic organism?
True, but wouldn't that be contingent on them being conscious as well? If they were soulless robots, what incentive would they have to spare things they consider conscious as opposed to part of a soulless robot collective like themselves?
Even if they are conscious what incentive do human beings in general have to not be completely selfish?
People often assume that evolution is perfect but it isn't. Altruism has been much studied in evolution and no real plausible explanation why a lot of animals portray highly altruistic behaviours while others don't can be found. A cat will basically never inconvenience itself one bit for the sake of another lifeform but apes, dolphins, and elephants are observed to go out of their way to not hurt other lifeforms and even going so far as to donate their own scarce resources. Elephants and humans often take care of wounded animals and provide them with nourishment and the evolutionary purpose for this is puzzling.
A likely explanation for this is just "evolution isn't perfect"; mirror neurons for humans were a net advantage in working as a team and group even though they also come with the disadvantage of altruism it seems and the two are hard for evolution to decouple. It's also why we still have toes and why males have nipples and barely operational mammary glands because it's hard for evolution to erase toes whilst keeping fingers and to keep female nipples whilst erasing the male ones.
VashhTS ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:05:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This will not be a popular opinion. But with a degree in philosophy, and obsession with neurotransmitters due to having paranoid schizophrenia. It's hard not to see us as this way. The brain is just an interpretation device of external reality. And in the case of mine? It started projecting an external reality via hallucinations based on somehow I chemical paranoid getting out of hand. Stress was definitely the Catalyst I know that for sure.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:26:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You know how science allows us to go and see, smell, hear, taste, or touch something? And we can measure it in some way? And we can explain, or at least try to explain how it works and what it is?
Why can't we do that with ourselves? Your own life experience. You right now in this living breathing present are constantly feeling something. But what does that feeling feel like? And how can it be described and explained by science? That's the hard problem.
Consciousness is the narrative that we tell ourselves about what we have already done.
Xudda ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:19:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why do we experience things from such a non tangible way while being made of tangible stuff?
How does one define "tangible stuff"? Where does one find any "tangible stuff" in reality? How does one differentiate between the mind and the physical world? The question is, in that form, entirely meaningless
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:32:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Absolutely not. Whether objects genuinely exist in an external reality doesn't matter for this hard problem. The fact remains that you yourself know there's a difference between the phenomenological experience of looking at a rock, and how we conceive of the rock and interact with it.
I mean, I guess you could claim you don't do this, but I would've expected you to try jumping off a building and surviving by now.
Would you allow someone to cut off one of your fingers if they paid you 1 cent? Probably not. How about four billion dollars? I know I would and I'm confident that you probably would too.
This establishes two things, that there are sums of money that you will accept to cut off your finger, and there are sums of money that you will decline to cut off your finger.
Because of how money works. The difference between the highest figure you'll say no to, and the lowest figure you'd say yes to, is exactly one cent.
These numbers objectively exists, but they're impossible to grasp. Pick the lowest number you can think of accepting, and tell me honestly that you'd decline a counter offer of exactly one cent less.
[deleted] ยท 1834 points ยท Posted at 15:41:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you have a gradient of red to blue you can say that one side is red and another side is blue but you will not be able to say if the colour in the middle, or even a third from the left or right, is red or blue.
Edit: Yes, I know the colour in the middle of the two is purple, but for the sake of this explanation you can only choose "red" or "blue" as your answer.
If you have a gradient of red gray to blue gray you can say that one side is red gray and another side is blue gray but you will not be able to say if the colour in the middle, or even a third from the left or right, is red gray or blue gray.
If you have a gradient of red black to blue really really dark gray, you can say that one side is red black and another side is blue really really dark gray, but you will not be able to say if the colour in the middle -- or even a third from the left or right -- is red black or blue really really dark gray.
Congrats on being part of 0.0001% of society, which is the only type of colorblind that can't see the difference between red and blue! I realize it probably sucks in a lot of ways, but still pretty cool. Ever do an AMA about not being able to see any color at all, but just gradients?
sapphon ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:34:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's just a begged question; "is this red or blue" is asked and allows no good response where "what color is this" allows a perfectly appropriate response.
GU3MS ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:17:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Magenta doesn't have an associated wavelength, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just reddish blue.
Akeera ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:13:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Depends on what type of red and blue you choose, haha
Source: I paint a lot. Sometimes the mixed color canโt rightly be described as โpurpleโ as most people would immediately associate it as. This misconception caused lots of confusion when I initially started out.
Jaspeey ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:44:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is different from the sorties paradox, but imagine I gave you a million hues of blue that go from light to dark. If there's a hue of blue that you can't see, would you be able to imagine it?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:25:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Often times we only perceive by juxaposing something. Without context there is no real meaning to anything.
Some cultures don't actually see purple as a separate colour. They would just call it a type of blue or type of red. You can see it linguistically as well.
Lol. My wife used to do interviews with child actors. A lot of them were so in this rut of questions they expected you to ask and them to answer. They were just boring, not engaged, and just going through the motions so she would ask them, "when does blue become people?" The dumbfounded reactions were hysterical. Usually it snapped them out of their rut and they actually started holding a conversation.
Then where is the cut off point between red and purple?
You can make the gradient more and more finegrained but you'll never see a meaningful difference between two shades that are the equivalent of one cent apart (in analogy to the money case).
It illustrates the concept of vagueness quite well, especially when you take it one step further like this
I was just pointing out that the middle point between red and blue would be purple. It's a defined color that is a combination of the two. I think discerning the difference between a shade of red and purple (or blue and purple) is a more valid dilemma though. As far as I know there isn't really a definitive "middle color" between red and purple, or blue and purple.
I dunno, man. I'm just kinda confused. Philosophy in particular is just something I can't word out and explain things for, like I can think of what I mean to say and it makes sense to me, but I try to say it and it just falls apart.
No, but you could have a grey area where on some given days, depending on your current situation and mood, you might take it, and other days you wouldnt.
I agree, however at any given moment and any one specific given mood and situation, it can be assumed that there would be a cutoff point. This difference leads way to the point being argued in the first place.
There are many other situations where this also comes in to play. Basically, all life is lived at the limits. For example:
A man is shot. A paramedic arrives and performs the appropriate aid. The man lives. Had the paramedic arrived later, the man would have died. There must be a point where had the paramedic started his aid even one picosecond later, the man would have died. This is like the limit of his life. Beyond here, lies only death.
There is always a point of inflection, no matter how smooth the curve seems, one point is always where everything changes irrevocably.
This has happened to me before but I was the wagon and my socks were the toothpicks. I could carry every single sock, except one. I would have them all in tow, take one step, bam one sock falls out. I pick the fucker up with my hand and bam one more sock falls out of my arms. It happened years ago but honestly I had one of these paradoxical moments where I realized that there was a limit to how many socks I could carry and that one sock could cross that threshold. It was a bizarre but memorable moment in my existence.
Bravd ยท 139 points ยท Posted at 23:37:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Should have put that last sock on one hand like a mitten.
This has happened to me frequently enough that I've given it a fair bit of thought. It's not that you can carry all but one sock, it's that you're dropping one sock at a time. If you continue walking without picking up the fallen sock, you'll find that more would fall.
The pile of paper is heavy only after youve pick it up.
clinkyec ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 21:54:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I heard "The paradox goes as follows: considerย a heap of sandย from whichย grainsย are individually removed.ย Oneย might construct the argument, using premises, as follows:1000000ย grainsย ofย sandย isย a heap of sand(Premiseย 1)ย A heap of sand minus one grain is stillย a heap."
That's not a paradox, that's just the downfall of subjective words. What I mean is that there is no objective "heavy", it is always used in relation to something lighter than it
It's pretty easy to imagine. Compared to actually doing that, anyhow. That gets into complex geometrical tetris-like problems that I'm fairly sure don't have discovered solutions yet.
Though if I was modelling it in 3D, I'd probably just fake it with textures.
monsto ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 09:05:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Saw a video the other day about coastlines that introduced something i never considered:
You can never reach 100% accuracy on the length of a coastline.
Lol- you get really good at figuring out what your toothpick line is when you're traveling and you are at the 50.01 pound line and its this sock or extra toothbrush
What about when you're not longer putting toothpicks in the station wagon, and are now just putting toothpicks onto toothpicks. Essentially there's no limit, because then you could start using adhesives, or build upwards, and sideways, since it just has to be on the toothpicks. I think the limit is when you can no longer see any station wagon left to place a toothpick.
helm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:38:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, I can. You picture it as a phase transition. After the phase transition is complete, all accessible areas of the block are solid. like a big block of wood.
Etheo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:17:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's quite similar to the idea of "the last straw that broke the camel's back", isn't it?
This might be looked down upon but iv been a paramedic for 7 years. If itโs their time to go itโs their time to go. I have had calls where I hit every green light in route, gave flawless interventions, short transport time, relatively young healthy patient and they still died. On the flip side iv had calls where everything went wrong literally the ambulance broke down on scene the person was old with multiple mortality factors I couldnโt start an IV to save my life and they still lived. Im not a religious person but if the universe decides itโs their time then there isnโt much you or I or anyone can do. Even if you do make a crucial mistake. Itโs almost like destiny.
But due to the nature of time and it's relationship with a human's organic computation (in whatever way you look at it - chemical reactions or romantic conciousness) - if the paramedic on site decides to think for that one picosecond more, his decided angle of attack (medical procedure) could dramatically change due to the well noted incrongruity between our (human) decision(s) and indecision(s) with respect to time.
So, what i am trying to say is there an arguably perpetual stream of inflection points... No ?
Um no, the point is there ISNโT a point of inflection sometimes, thatโs why itโs a paradox. OPโs example with the money shows how though there may seem to be a bright line somewhere, there actually isnโt (u rly wouldnโt take one cent less?!)
Its not a paradox. The point must exist. It sure seems like the one cent less thing would invalidate it, but it doesn't. If there is a continuous line with one state on one side, and another state on the other, there must be a point within the line where the state changes.
Ur objectively wrong. This IS a paradox, and has been recognized as since Ancient Greece. Look up Sorites Paradox (as mentioned by OP). Ur reasoning of there needing to be a point is logically incorrect.
How about you learn to spell your? Pretty simple. Next, how about you also look up the Sorites paradox yourself and note that many proposed resolutions exist. The paradox that you cite is actually only a paradox if there is vagueness and the definition is arbitrary. My point, which is valid, is that if a state change occurs, and the timeline is continuous, there must be a point where before the state makes the change.
I don't think it's a fixed point in time, because arriving earlier or later may change the paramedics performance. Having less time to save his life may make them try harder or do better under pressure, than taking it a bit more calmly with less perceived time pressure.
Too many variables.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:23:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's entirely possible that for at least one value of x, the patient lives if treatment time is x seconds but dies if treatment time is x+.01 seconds. E.g., maybe the paramedic moves a bit more slowly if he is too confident that he has enough time, or if he arrives before the shooter flees the shooter rattles his nerves by threatening to shoot him too. So what you might end up with is a probability curve that looks like this.
Let me answer that specific example. In this case, death is caused by blood loss and oxygen deprivation of the brain. As the brain spends more and more time without oxygen, certain parts of it become damaged beyond repair. Because of this, death isnโt absolute, itโs a gradient of cognitive function. Itโs just that there comes a certain point where so much cognitive function is lost that they might as well be dead. Even if the parts of the brain that tell you to breathe become irreparably damaged, you could still extract the remaining cells and culture them in a Petri dish.
TLDR: A man is only completely dead when every last cell dies. Itโs just that sometimes, the remaining man thatโs still alive isnโt worth keeping around.
I appreciate your comment, but I do think it doesn't address the point at hand. What matters is that a point exists where some almost inconceivably short period of time before the person lives, and after, he dies. How we define physical death, or even what it actually is, doesn't matter.
Ok, I think I get it now. I thought people were just saying that itโs impossible to find that point, while I think it is. We may not know how to find it yet, but as our definition of death becomes more precise and we develop better tools to find it, it will eventually be possible.
In other words, I misinterpreted the comment and I thought you were saying the exact opposite of what you actually meant. I still donโt think itโs worth a downvote though.
An asymptote is a line that a function approaches but never reaches. A point of inflection is where the sign of the slope changes from positive to negative, or vice versa (technically, the inflection point is where it changes to zero).
That assumes that every action has to lead to the same reaction at even the smallest of smallest of things. Basically, something has the be perfectly predictable if all subject matter is given.
... if the curve is given by a differentiable function, which comprise precisely 0% of functions. Most things aren't as well behaved as a differentiable function.
kopkiwi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:42:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sure there are many picoseconds where the paramedics could have started and the man's blood loss and low oxygen in the brain would have resulted in damage.
narof22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:37:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, and death is something a lot of people agree on would change things irrevocably. But the paramedic situation is not truly as binary as it seems. Paramedic arrives in 5 minutes: guy lives and seems to go on to live a healthy life (but is nevertheless damaged from the event). Paramedic arrives in 6 minutes: minor brain damage. 7 minutes: brain damage, which irrevocably affects his life even if it does not cripple him entirely. 8 minutes: heavy brain damage. 9 minutes: vegetable. 10 minutes: death. Is the difference between a vegetable and death really that different for all intents and purposes? What about the difference between heavy brain damage and being a vegetable? Many people would actually prefer death over those states.
None of that is relevant to the discussion at hand. The quality of the life is immaterial. The point of the exercise is that a time must exist where a Planck second before they are alive, and now they are dead. We think things are not that atomic, but in fact they are.
It is the literal straw that broke the camels back.
Instead of the consequences, let's put it only in terms of life/death, then. It is still gradual, when we take into consideration that we all die, and it is just a matter of timing:
If the paramedic arrives too late: the guy is dead on arrival.
If the paramedic arrives within 10 minutes: the guy dies in the hands of the paramedic.
Within 8 minutes: the guy dies in the ambulance.
6 minutes: the guy dies in the hospital.
4 minutes: the guy dies after a few months (sepsis, etc.)
2 minutes: the guy's lifespan is shortened by 10 years.
1 minutes: the guy's lifespan is shortened by 5 years
0 minutes: lifespan shortened by 3 years.
-30 seconds: the paramedic prevents the accident and lifespan is not affected! (but he still dies eventually)
We all die, it is just a matter of when we die. The planck second is meaningless here. Timing just affects severity.
No, severity is meaningless. The actual consequences do not matter. This exercise is about the linearity of incidences. The Planck second is the crux of the discussion. Pick any one of your effects, and a time exists where one Planck second earlier, it is avoided. THAT is the point.
Death is irrelevant. Change of state is what matters. You tried to move the goal posts by removing the idea of death, but none of that matters. The Planck second exists immediately before each state change.
Of course. I focused on the death example because I think it can be rejected there. While there may be a few convincing examples out there, I'm thinking that generally whenever an empirical example is given, actually zooming in on the that example (by someone with sufficient expertise on that particular subject) will similarly result in a rejection of this idea as well. 'States' are, ultimately, concepts that we've made up. They generally work quite well in every-day life, but every now and then they create problems. (Another death example: different countries have different laws for when someone is legally dead: transporting a braindead body on life support between them can actually make an 'administratively dead' person alive again). Since states are made up, the transition between them is also up to debate. Therefore, the 'physical moment' when a transition happens is generally blurred; i.e. it happens more in our minds than really in the physical world. I guess this is why it is the realm of philosophy and most applied scientists don't concern themselves with this.
Gullex ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:57:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This reminds me of the abortion debate about "when life begins".
I don't think there's a single magical moment where something suddenly becomes alive whereas the very moment before it was not alive. Life is a continuum.
The thing is, there must be a spot where directly before it is not something and directly after it is something. If you are alive one moment and dead the next, it must be possible to pinpoint the exact spot where that occurred. Think of it like a number line, it is continuous, so therefore the spot must exist.
Gullex ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:10:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because the timeline is continuous. If one condition exists on one side of the line, and a different condition exists on the other, then at some point along the line the change must occur.
Gullex ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:28:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The spot is arbitrary and I don't believe has some inherent, fundamental existence.
We can just be OK that it's a continuum, and that we have to agree on spots so we can communicate in society. There's no problem with that as long as we remember the spots we chose don't really mean anything besides the meaning we ascribe to them.
Arbitrary has no relevance to existence. My choice of lunch is arbitrary, but it certainly exists.
Gullex ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:44:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
???
But that assemblage of food doesn't have something written into the fabric of its existence as "clutchheimer's lunch". It's just a collection of stuff you've decided to call "lunch".
I could call it my lunch too. Can it exist simultaneously as both your lunch and my lunch?
Buhms ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:05:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
'one point is always where everything changes irrevocably'
Makes me think of this stunning photo from the Syrian Civil War, which captures the exact miliesecond a squad of rebels gets hit by a tank shell. SFW(ish)
I think this problem has strong ties to the psychological concept of โframingโ. Essentially what it is is if you present a stimulus to a person, itโll affect their decisions in near future situations. Like, if you show a person a video on how car salesperson uses tactics to get you to pay more than you want, the person will walk into a dealership more skeptical of the salespeople than if they werenโt shown the video.
I think starting at a high value and working your way down will result in you picking an overall lower value because youโve only taken off a cent for each iteration, right? But I think it also works the same in reverse.
So theoretically thereโs a set point where youโll do take the money, but I think because humans can be primed for stimulus and because we learn and adapt to situations as they arise (such as being asked that question), itโs easy to sway that value lower or higher by asking the question in a certain way.
The concept of anchoring explains this too. The first peice of information we are given on a subject, whatever that subject may be, acts as an anchor to the range of choices or desicions an individual will deem acceptable to make. Intrestingly, this happens as soon as the information has been conveyed to you, whether you believe it to be true or not. The only time anchoring doesn't affect your thoughts and desicions if you are aware that you are about to recieve a piece of information, and decide it to be false before being exposed to it. Thus you will not take in the information to the same degree had you not already deicded it's plausibility. This is a bias in our thinking that is commonly overlooked but used by many corporations, whether they know it or not.
For example, used car salesman can set the price of their cars to serve as an anchor for their customers. A salesman could set the price of 1996 toyota camry at $10,000 USD. Even though any customer would know that this value is grossly overinflated, that price tag serves as an achor for the offers he will make on the car, should he choose to buy it. So instead of making an offer based on what the customer knows the value of the car to be, he makes one which is closer to $10,000.
Another example which may not benefit a company is through damage caps, which are maximum limits on the amount of damages that can be awarded for a case. Say a damage cap is set at $500,000. This number serves as an anchor for all cases, regardless of their severity. So monetary settlements are far more likely to be higher on average, and closer to $500,00 for minor cases.
This concept can also be extrapolated to objects, colours, etc. and I believe that is what framing encompasses if I am remembering correctly (forgive me if not).
This bias in thinking and so many others are covered in detail in "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. If this stuff interests you at all its a must read
I think Sorties' paradox would be better illustrated with a physical problem rather than one of desire (that maybe time dependent).
One grain of sand is definitely not a heap. Two grains is also not a heap. 1 millions grains of sand is a heap. Take one out it is still a heap. At what step, does the heap not be a heap anymore? And is a single grain of sand really the difference between a heap and not a heap?
I think a similar situation arises by thinking about a small number, say 2. I think weโd all agree that adding 1 more doesnโt make it a large number, because 3 is still small.
Following that logic, you can keep adding 1 to the number forever and it will never be large, because adding 1 to a small number means itโs still small.
3 grains of sand could be a heap. Just a really very tiny one. It depends on the true definition of what constitutes the rules to what we call a โheapโ.
[deleted] ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 21:06:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But it's ridiculous to consider that because a heap is not an objectively defined thing
True, that is where the paradox arises from. We know for sure at one end of the scale(of quantity here), is not a heap and the other end is a heap, but there is part at the middle which is indistinguishable. No boundary for the two outcomes and not defined boundary even for the vague middle.
Another physical example I can think of is Reynold's number for a fluid flow. A small number means a laminar flow and large number means a turbulent flow. There is an indistinguishable middle where flow transitions from laminar to turbulent and back at random. But even the middle is not clear to determine.
A heap is any collection of discrete countable objects arranged such that at least one of the objects is supported off the ground entirely by others of the collection.
Yes, so long as the top grain is supported entirely by the bottom grain.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 10:32:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's why using the dictionary definition is completely wrong: words are defined by how people use them, not by the dictionary. Nobody would say a heap is two grains of sand, hence why a heap is not an objectively defined word, but varies depending on a person's perception
yup, its also why we have standards and stuff. We define a "foot" by an actual distance of measurement instead of the actual size of someone's foot.
Reminds me of a geotech class I took, dealing with soils (dirt, which has its own set of definitions)... When you hear the word "gravel", you might think of little rocks, maybe half an inch, maybe an inch, we all know what "gravel" is because we've walked on it or seen it around. The actual definition of geotechnical "gravel" is particles bigger than 2 mm that's pretty much a large grain of sand, but because of how things behave, that's where the line of "gravel" was defined.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:39:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Heap" is an idea, and not a physical thing. It exist in the realm of the abstract. One person might say something is a heap, while another would not. Also the brain isn't like a computer where it says x number of grains is a heap, but rather when the circuit that sees it as a heap overwhelms the circuit that says it's not a heap. To say that there is a magic moment when something is a heap or not is kinda silly because it's just competing neural circuits.
Most, if not all paradoxes are built on bad assumptions.
I would argue this would be better looked at on a logarithmic scale. If a heap begins at a value in 104 grains, y*103 would be a very small heap. 104 a heap. 105 a large heap. Etc
Still given this I agree that there is a point where it turns from no heap classification to classified as some type of heap.
For me and the fingers I'd say yes to anything 106. Probably still snap up high 105, but anything 104 I'd say no. As we are talking in such large terms one or two pennies makes very little odds.
There are lots conditions and categories where the boundary fuzzy. Even if we restrict ourselves to a strict, deterministic 1d โlineโ boundaries where you can say you are one side or the other, there are still lots of systems where given some point itโs hard to tell whether you are one side of the boundary or the other, for example: the boundary of the Mandelbrot set.
I donโt see how a paradox arises. It seems like overly simplistic thinking. Itโs assuming that the only information needed to answer the question โis this a heap sandโ is the number of grains of sand when in reality many other things go into answering that question, such proximity to the viewer, time of day, etc.
Itโs like saying you canโt get a function of one variable to answer solve a problem because you actually need one of 5 variables.
Itโs a maybe that depend on the thousands of other variables that are involved in decisions and their interactions with each other, and these variable can fluctuate from moment to moment.
If in a hypothetical world, you were able to freeze all variables, yes, there would a line drawn. However, many of the variables would be highly dynamic and highly interactive (ie high variable A means yes, unless high variable B, that is unless high variable C or D, etc).
Simply saying โthere is a point that your decision flipsโ is an over simplified view of what actually happens when making decisions. The reality is that our decisions are affected by so many variables, that framing a decision as a binary switch is unrealistic.
Completely agree. It assumes that a direct comparison between the value of the money and the value of the finger are the only factors thus there has to be a one cent difference where you will definitely be yes or definitely be know. Decisions don't work like that. 500 could be no. 10000 could be yes. The range in between doesn't have to fall on either "black or white" with regards to what your answer will be.
I don't even know what that means. There are literally only two answers you can give, yes or no. That's as black and white as it gets. At some point, you will stop saying no and start saying yes.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:20:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But the point is that the point where you switch over is highly dependent on so many factors, some of which aren't even measurable, so saying that the difference is a cent is misleading since it'll be fluctuating from one second to the next. If you froze time and looked at it, you'd be able to pick an exact amount, but increase the time to even a small window, and there's going to be dozens of different amounts that would switch you over within that timeframe.
How about if I were to travel back in time and ask the question again but this time for one cent less? I keep doing so and I will eventually figure out the cutoff point.
armrha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:22:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This diatribe on decision making has nothing to do with the paradox. You still have to say yes or no, and apparently there is some point where the addition of one cent will turn no to yes, no matter how many "factors" that fit into your decision making.
Itโs the difference between theory and reality. In theory, there is a clean line drawn with a one cent difference. In reality it isnโt that simple.
Itโs like trying to get of a cake by cutting it in half over and over. In theory you can cut it in half forever. In reality you will reach a point will it is functionally gone
But "maybe" isn't an accepted response to the question. Either you cut your finger off or you don't. The point at which you cut your finger off might change based on the variables you talk about, but there will always be a dollar amount at which you decide to cut your finger off.
Itโs not them saying โmaybeโ. Itโs a probability of saying yes. Itโs โmaybeโ in the sense that without knowing every variable and itโs affect, you canโt say with certainty. Until the decision is made, itโs not possible to be definitive, assuming you are considering all the variables involved. In a hypothetical world, you can assume variables. In the real world, you cannot.
Can you give an example? I just don't see how it's impossible to be definitive if the only two options are yes and no.
Say you played this out in the real world. You say no the first 99,999 times, but then when offered $100,00 you take the money. Where is the maybe in this situation? You can look back and determine the exact point at which the answer changed from no to yes
What he's saying is that there's a probability distribution around saying "yes" which is a function of the money being offered AND other factors.
A simple example would be to consider only two variables as relevant to the decision - the money offered and the price of a luxury item you're currently interested in buying. Suppose I'm currently looking at buying a video game console. In that case maybe my probability of saying "yes" given I'm offered $100 is .001, but my probability of saying "yes" given I'm offered $500 is 1 since that $500 will get me all that I want right now. Now if instead the probability of "yes" also depended on a third variable - let's call it responsibility - then my probability of "yes" given I'm offered $500 drops to 0.00001, since it would cost me more long term in medical costs and potential lost income than the $500 reward. But what if I was drunk when this offer was made? In that case the probability may jump up to 0.5. There are many time and location specific variables that will influence the probability of saying "yes" to a given amount at a given moment.
Disclaimer: I'm a statistician, not a philosopher. This is how I immediately framed this problem in my mind when I read the top level comment, but I'm sure a philosopher would find something to argue about with my reasoning.
I think the issue I take with this line of reasoning is that all the other possible situations seem ultimately irrelevant to the question. What if I was drunk? What if I was desperate for money? It doesnโt matter, all that matters is that the question is being asked now, and the situational variables of this specific instance are the only ones that are relevant. However, perhaps taking this down to cents instead of perhaps 50 or even 10 dollar increments, makes it seem much more dramatically unrealistic than it is. There has to be a line. The only thing is, I donโt think the line could ever be found unless this was a serious cut your finger off or donโt situation, in which the finger cutter offer believably had the money promised to the finger cut offee. Everything else is all conjecture.
If you are looking at a single moment in time, there will be a line. But from moment to moment, that line will fluctuate as variables change. Ask me today, the answer will be different than if you ask me tomorrow,
In hypothetical terms, you can just assume all the variables are constant. In practical terms where the world isnโt frozen in time, youโre looking at probabilities rather than definitive answers.
But it only matters that Iโm asking you today. Your answer should I ask you tomorrow is different than your answer now maybe, but who cares? Iโm asking you now
It doesnโt matter, all that matters is that the question is being asked now, and the situational variables of this specific instance are the only ones that are relevant.
Yes, but my point isn't only that these variables influence your decision, but that answering "yes" at any given moment follows some probability distribution. The outside variables will affect this distribution, but there is still randomness inherent in this exercise.
If you were to fix every possible influential variable and repeat this experiment over and over again, sometimes I'd say yes to $499.99, and sometimes I'd say no to $500. I guess the philosophers would call that free will.
If youโve had a run of people lying to you, youโre pretty primed to be skeptical of the offer or conversely youโve had nothing but people telling you the truth, you are more apt to believe it.
If the person offering it looks skeevy vs well dressed.
Maybe a certain bird lands nearby and you take it as a โbad omenโ because you were raised superstitious.
Human decision making is very rarely a straight forward, binary event. Itโs affected by past life experiences combined with current situation variables. The current situation variables can be constantly evolving as well, and they can have complicated interaction with each other.
If I offered you your favorite pizza for free, youโd most certainly say yes, right? What if I winked while saying free? What if I put air quotes around the word pizza? Youโd say more likely than not (justifiably) say no. Itโs creepy as fuck and there is no way youโd trust me.
Now, what if your best friend winked while saying free or put air quotes around pizza? Your pre-existing relationship and trust in your friend, youโd probably think heโs just messing around.
armrha ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:30:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're basically just adding a ton of shit to the problem and then taking the new problem you've developed and claiming it to be the real problem. Very strange.
Assume you can have absolute trust in the agreement going through, and there's no extenuating circumstances, and no particular dire need for the person to get some amount of money right away, and the problem still remains.
Start at a number you would definitely say yes to, and keep moving down one cent at a time, and presumably sometime before a number you would definitely say no to is the one cent barrier.
I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand this lol. Everyone is adding weird variables to the equation for no reason other than to make the problem more complex.
You are setting up a hypothetical world. I merely said a real life scenario, itโs not a simple binary issue, but one where youโd have to look at probabilities.
Hypothetical worlds, you can assume lots of things so that you can come to a definitive answer. However, the real world doesnโt work that way.
ReaLyreJ ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:49:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look, you either takemoney and lose a finger. Or you get no moeny, and keep your hands.
YOu dont get to both. THey are literally mutually exclusive. No matter how many billions of variables there are, there is an amount of money somewhere where you'll lop off a finger, and lower than that you won't.
Who said anything about both? I merely said itโs not a line but a gradient band of probabilities of the answer.
The limit where you answer changes will vary on a wide range of values, dependent on the outcomes of many variables, which can change moment to moment. To think there is a single point is ignoring the vast complexities of the human mind.
yes/no questons do not have a gradient. There is yes. or no. It doesn't matter how complex people are. Because you can not choose both yes take my finger and no do not take my finger.
I did. You just dont seem to understand what mutually exclusive means. For x you will not cut your finger off but for Y you will. That means somewhere between X and Y, there is a single value you will say yes to. That value might change moment to moment.
But at no point are there multiple values, unless youre talking about multiple fingers. Inwhich case there's still no gradient. It's just multiple values for different fingers.
You imply multiple values with phrases like gradient. The fact that you're arguing against the idea there is a single point where you will give up a finger for money means you are arguing for the other.
We can not define where the single point is, but seeing as it is literally impossible to keep and lose the same finger, there is no gradient where they like belt sender your finger off from the start.
You either take the cash at a certain point. Or you do not take it. Yes or no. That means that at value X, you have decided your finger is worth less than the cash and you take it.the value of X doesn;t matter, what matters is accounting for all variables, X will always have just a singular value at any one static point in time.
If someone told you to cut off your finger for one cent and you said no, and then that person kept raising the "reward" with one cent till you said yes, would that not mean that there is a one cent difference?
Except itโs a band of probability. What at one moment you say yes, another moment youโd say no. Itโs not an overly simplistic binary event where you switch from yes to no every time.
The only time thatโs possible is if you are ignoring how insanely complex human decision making actually is.
In a hypothetical world where you ignore all variables, this is how it would work. In a more realistic sense, youโd see a graduated band of probabilities.
You're adding disturbance variables into a situation for which they simply could not produce a response within the accounted for scenario. The paradox is not time dependent -- we do not introduce a number that results in a no and then proceed to increase it until a yes is produced. Instead, think of it as a repeating loop in which one party exists outside of the loop and one party exists entirely in the loop. All variables that would affect their decisions, therefore, are the exact same in each iteration. In doing so, we isolate the stimulus that produces the response of yes or no. At some point in the iteration, the response would change from no to yes with the responding party having no knowledge that any other offer had ever been made or that they previously had said no. This iteration is the "one cent difference."
Itโs theory vs reality. In theory, you assume variables so that you can come to a single line where the answer changes. In reality, you canโt assume those variables, so youโre looking more at a probability gradient than a single point.
armrha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's still a yes or a no at some particular cent value, though. This doesn't change anything about the paradox.
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price
Well if you say no homo then it isn't gay, but you'd have to pay the $999,999
[deleted] ยท 62 points ยท Posted at 16:57:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Another side note to this is the value of things based on simple supply and demand.
The water bottle being the perfect case. How much is a bottle of water worth?
If you are at the store it's probably around .50 cents.
If you are in the desert and a store is selling them, it could be five or ten dollars. But, that is conditional: Are you thirsty? How long until the next water bottle can be found?
If you are in a desert and you have two bottles of water one for you and one for one of the other two people with you, how much is it worth?
Well, it depends on how much money they have. Right?
Nope, it depends on how much money both of them have. If person A is a millionaire and person B has ten dollars the bottle is worth eleven dollars.
What if the two people with you are Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos? Further, what if you must have the water to survive?
The bottle is worth billions.
Paladia ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 21:31:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you are in a desert and you have two bottles of water one for you and one for one of the other two people with you, how much is it worth? Well, it depends on how much money they have. Right? Nope, it depends on how much money both of them have. If person A is a millionaire and person B has ten dollars the bottle is worth eleven dollars.
No one who was into business would sell it for $11 to the millionaire as they know he would pay more for it. It's not like the millionaire is going to say "Nope, I'd rather die of thirst than pay $12 for it!". The demand is too great and the supply too limited to not make it a sellers market.
Humans are very good at mentally creating boundaries where no practical ones exist. A simple example is a black/white gradient. Look at the linked image - when researchers give images like this to people and ask them to draw boundary lines between black & gray and gray & white, people tend to draw them in about the same place.
We have to draw boundaries in order to turn continuous variables into discrete ones, but when we zoom in and examine those boundaries our decisions make much less sense. The Sorties paradox is basically the same thing, as is any sort of spectrum - what skin color defines a person's race, types of arms to regulate, etc. It's just how our brain works.
Ask me if I would have my finger cut off for 1 cent. Record my answer, Yes or No, then go back in time to the exact same moment, and ask in the exact same way if I would have my finger cut off for 2 cents. Do this billions of times until you get to whatever your highest payment would be, say 4 billion dollars, and then plot the 'Yes's and 'No's. There would be a first Yes somewhere (assuming I ever accepted the offer), but I'd bet there wouldn't be a hard cutoff anywhere, after which I would always say yes. Because, for instance, maybe I'd say no to $1,123,123,123.124 but yes to $1,123,123,123.123 because it's a nice number, or whatever other random psychological reason. Instead, maybe there'd be a value after which I would say Yes more and more often until we reach a value where I answer Yes almost every time. If you asked me in a different setting while I was in a different mood, or asked in a different way, maybe you'd get a different distribution.
This avoids the paradox by making the simplifying assumption that I am only asked once (asking more than once will probably change my answers, see the guy talking about "framing") and that my answer depends on my whims at the moment, so it will only be the same on average.
Personally, I feel this is a bad example. This is permanent disfigurement, and I value my physical integrity a lot more than money. I can just live a little harder and earn the money over time and keep my finger instead. I may never be as rich, but at least I'd still have all my fingers.
Then again, my fingers are really important to my life, as a musician, a programmer, and a gamer.
Also, if the difference between the lowest value you'd say yes to and the highest value you'd say no to is one cent, then you are essentially saying your finger is worth precisely that one cent. To me, that doesn't really work.
All in all, I just personally think it's a bad example. I'd say how much it'd take for you to have sex with somebody you're not attracted to - gay sex, straight sex if you're gay, whatever you want - might be a better example, because since that doesn't have permanent results, you're less likely to run into extreme cases where a person just doesn't have any level they'd say yes to.
But if the difference between me selling my finger and NOT selling my finger is one cent, than that one cent is the value of my finger, because without that one cent, I wouldn't sell my finger.
No it's not. Let's say you would sell it for 100 USD but not 99.99 USD. Then your finger is worth 100 USD the difference being one cent. The value of a car is not the listed price subtracted from what I would want to pay for it.
How much would my medical bills, a prosthetic, and enough money to comfortably live an upper middle class lifestyle till I'm 100 be? That much exactly, not a penny less.
A number of folks sort of mentioned this but I think the point is that people don't think in a quantitative sense at the 1 cent level. 1 cent to me is a tootsie roll and no quantity of tootsie rolls will convince me to sell you my finger. Point being, and like others have said, this decision is one that is not only time dependent relative to my position in life but likely to be swayed by a range surrounding items I value my finger at. If I'm looking to get college tuition off of my finger I'll take a slew of values that will differ by tens of thousands and not by cents. The only way there is an exact cent is if I already know that figure going in, in which case it isn t much of a paradox.
I saw one argument that said something to the end that it's better stated in a physical problem with grain of sand versus heap of sand and I think that amounts to a semantic difference. If it doesn't then heap would need to be a well defined number of grains of sand. Otherwise you're dealing with a "one man's trash, another man's treasure" scenario.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:23:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Five million. I settle at five million. 4,999,999.99 wont cut it.
I was just thinking about that the other day (I've never seen it before, I just kinda thought of it). If you're making something, say cookies, there's a point where 1 single piece of sugar makes or breaks the recipe. Idk it's just weird to me.
iTut ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:51:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always liked the example: if you took a picture of a frog every second of its entire life, somewhere in that stack of pictures is a photo of a tadpole immediately followed by a photo of a frog, but it's difficult to pinpoint the exact spot that this occurs.
Iโve thought about things like this a lot, but not with that exact concept. Like if the local McDonaldโs moved a foot away, it wouldnโt matter, but if it moved 20 miles away, it would, and at what point would it for sure be too far? And if it moved another foot, would that matter? Also with closing time. Going an extra minute is fine, not so much another 2 hours
This sounds a lot like a variant of the heap problem.
Take a handful of sand, and pile it up into a little heap. Now take one grain of sand out of the heap and set it aside. The heap is still a heap, but a single grain is not a heap. Do it again and you still have a heap, but two grains is not a heap either. Keep doing that until the first heap is gone, and at some point you will have formed a second, different heap, but when did the second heap become a heap? When did the first heap stop being a heap?
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:44:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If humans were robots, yes. I've seen people say yes to a price for a thing I was selling them, change their mind, not accept my lowered offer, then come back a week later offering more when the thing was gone.
Their 'price' wasn't one number, but a Heisenberg cloud of probabilities which a bad meal or a sudden phone call can knock them out of.
The difference between the highest figure you'll say no to, and the lowest figure you'd say yes to, is exactly one cent
I disagree with this. The amount will change based on mood, will change based on the method of finger removal, will change based on the amount initially offered, etc. There isn't a single price in general. The amount would be worked out like a negotiation, it doesn't matter exactly the amount that the finger is worth to the person, just the amount they can actually get paid for it and the amount the finger remover is willing to pay. The concept of the 1 cent barrier between yes and no doesn't exist, and also isn't relevant in practical application of the problem.
It's valid at any given instant, though. With time as a factor, it changes so fast we simply can't measure or even identify all of the variables before enough of them change and alter the value.
But, all else being equal, there is a cutoff (no pun intended).
Changing the method or your mood, etc. changes the circumstances of the deal. In that single moment, there are a range of values you would say yes to, and a range of values you would say no to. Where do they meet? It has to be somewhere...but where?
armrha ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 20:27:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It must be valid. There is fundamentally a point where it is too little money, and then a point where it is sufficient money. That is just how money works. I don't get all these people attacking the thought experiment.
Like, the thing is if 1 billion dollars is enough, and then you are offered 1 cent less than 1 billion dollars, that's also enough. How far down could they go? Eventually you would say no, but you'd probably be agreeing for a long time. You can only answer yes or no.
There is absolutely a one cent barrier at some point, where you feel like this is no longer worth it.
I think people criticizing it just don't like the fact that it's confusing them...
There's too many variables to ever know the exact penny amount you'd take and it probably changes every instance.
It would be effected by time, anchoring of price, and even a relative idea of what mood I'm in or want in life at that moment. Saying no to a lot of +1 penny increases would get old fast, and would probably lead to an outright no since it would take too long to get to the numbers I want. The exact number would be subject to the ideas in chaos theory and could not be known, and always changing.
That said, there is an exact penny amount I'd take, but I don't know exactly what it would come out to be and would need to be shown the amount offered would cover what I want. What is that amount? Enough to buy me drugs to cut off the pain, get a proesthetic to replace it, and set me up for life so I can live comfortably and not have to work until I'm old and dead. Show me the exact amount to pull that off, and I will say yes and not for a penny less. Anything I couldn't be shown would require a buffer space above what research I could do to guess. If I can't research, I'd need to be offered so much I wouldn't even need to consider if I can afford the life I want. Or else it is a no. The exact amount I could be swayed to would be subject to inscrutable variables in the moment.
Also, the concept isn't too mindblowing when you realize the practice is abused already in marketing when buying products. The exact penny a purchasing decision changes is usually when the furthest end number moves up. 8.00 will get less sales than 7.99, but 7.99 will see no discernable difference from 7.98. This would work all the way up in a statistical sense. So if I was offered 9,999,999.99, I'd be more likely to say yes when that number hits a nice even 10,000,000.00. Increments that fully move up in the lowest amount a person sees value in will also see changes. So if I think of change less than a quarter as worthless, 24 cents may not see a difference, but 25 cents might.
The problem with this is that it completely removes things like the person's mood at any given moment and current life situation/circumstance. Also...why does the difference have to be one cent less? Why can't it be a large gap of a grey area whose answer isn't determined by a definite yes or no from the person but instead external circumstances like, again, the person's living situation at the moment? Like 500 bucks would be a definite no, but 10,000 would be definite yes ( numbers for simplicity). The yes or no happening in the range in between could be effected by external or temporary factors rather than a direct assessment of worth (is X money worth Y consequence?). It doesn't have to be a literal one cent difference. At least I really don't see it needing to be.
Haha I play this "game" with my gf all the time. I'll say something like, "For how much would you eat this fly?" She'll say, "$5,000", to which I'll reply, "so you wouldn't do it for $4,900"? And the game begins!
I mean after a bunch of counter offers I'd stop. This isn't really that mind bending
armrha ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:32:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a really good one, but it's amazing how many people are like, arguing about it being 'false'. This is a very well established thought experiment and no matter what shit these armchair philosophers want to randomly add into it (accusing it of being "probability"? what? totally irrelevant) is going to change that.
So? If I don't have a phisolophy degree then I don't get to think and argue a little about it? You can't convince people by saying "I'm a pro, just listen to me", in a debate you convince people by argument and counter-arguement. Stop gatekeeping everything ffs.
I don't think the difference would ever be one cent. The number of dollars I would need to allow a stranger to cut off my finger differs by at least a factor of 10,000 from the point where I would give any sort of care to the numbers following the decimal point.
Somewhere between that factor of 10,000 is a point where you would say โnoโ and one penny taken away at a time will eventually lead you to that point.
Even in the terms you are speaking, you have to draw a clear line where you will not accept even a penny less.
Example:
Me: Would you cut your finger off for $10,000?
You: no.
Me: how about, $100,000?
You: ok.
Me: how about $99,999.99?
You: yes itโs only a penny
Me: okay then how about 99,999.98?
You: yes
Etc.
If we keep taking away a penny, we will get back to the original $10,000 which you said no to, so obviously there is a definite point in which you will have an absolute minimum you will take, not even a penny less, because at that point it will no longer be worth it to you.
The example I know of the Sorites paradox is what is considered a heap.
Take a few grains of rice. Is that a heap? No. Take a truck full of rice and unload it. Is this a heap? Most people will say yes.
At some point, one grain of rice is the difference between a number of grains of rice being a heap and not being a heap.
In the real world, if this question controls some mechanics, hysteresis is usually used to decide whether or not to perform one action or the other, where you need a larger difference around that border in order to trigger the event.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:37:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
90% of my student loans is the lowest Iโll accept. One cent lower just makes it meh.
Honestly Iโve thought about this. Itโs probably not one value that where it flips. Iโd bet thereโs multiple value where you switch. Like you wouldnโt accept 1110034$ for someone to cut off your finger, but you would accept 1110033$ for someone to cut of your finger.
When you are right around the value where cost-benefit analysis comes back neutral, it probably just depends on small little random things, like how the number sounds.
Towerss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:07:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would stop at a number that sounds bad. 1 billion, sure. 10 million? Yeah. 999,999? No way. I can get there myself somehow
I have Tourette's, so I'd only take the offer if you took the opposite finger as well.
moogly2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:18:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This quandary stirred my mind a while ago, but I was unable to find the concept expressed philosophically, or any other way. Thanks for leading me out of the cave on this mattter.
Would you sleep with me for ten million dollars? Yes, of course
Would you sleep with me for a penny? What kind of girl do you think I am?
That's already been established, we are merely haggling over price.
Paladia ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:23:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because of how money works. The difference between the highest figure you'll say no to, and the lowest figure you'd say yes to, is exactly one cent.
That's not necessarily true. You are making the assumption that the number itself is irrelevant and only the monetary value holds relevance. If that was true, then shops wouldn't try to sell things for 9.99 but just sell it for 10 instead. However, we perceive some numbers as more or less than they are.
You ask the person about 1 cent and he said no but he said yes when you asked him about four billions. If you asked him about $100 000 he might have said yes but he might also have said no to $109 999 if you had asked him that instead. Despite the later value being higher. It all depends on what he perceives as more valuable.
Thinking to myself I would say there is a hard number (let's say a million) I want, and then another number that I will exclaim "fuck you" and walk away.
I used to do this on the reg when asking for how many more minutes I could stay up before bed
Nerdn1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:14:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Human brains just don't work that way, however. Your minimum price will change depending on everything said before coming to a figure. You can be convinced to go lower than what you think is your bottom dollar and you'll try to aim high.
Money works one way, human psychology and subjective value work another.
This is a really good example. But my favourite version is if you have a pile of sand consisting of one million individual grains of sand. You take one grain out of the pile and set it aside, you wouldn't refer to that single grain as a "pile", but the 999,999 remaining grains would still be a pile. If you kept moving one grain over at a time, at what point does the first pile stop being considered a "pile" and at what point does the second pile BECOME a "pile"? Are you going to tell me 15,645 grains of sand is a pile, but 15,644 grains isn't a pile?
Duki- ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:38:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think about this a lot. Never knew it was an actual thing.
Another one I heard ( not sure if anyone has said this yet )
If you have a pile of pile of salt and you take away one grain, you still have a pile, but at what point is it no longer a pile?
salbris ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:57:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unfortunately like everything philosophical reality makes this complicated. I'm not so certain there is a practical "limit" it's more about psychology. Say you're feeling a little more confident that day maybe you choose a lower number? Say you go through this exercise and you pick 10 million now you realize that 1 cent less doesn't matter but imagine someone kept asking for smaller and smaller numbers eventually you would stop but that still probably wouldn't be your number. You're prior knowledge that 10 million is acceptable would change your opinion of lower numbers. You might not consider passing 9 million or even 9.9 million given your prior knowledge but if we reset the experiment we might find that you are satisfied with 5 million if we first suggest that.
Dunno if anyone else has mentioned this, they probably have, but to me it doesn't seem like there's much of a paradox here. Every dollar amount just has a probability of saying yes associated with it. So 1 cent has a probability of essentially 0 and $4 billion has a probability of essentially 1, and this probability just decreases as the amount offered increases. Therefore there's no "hard break" between saying yes and no, the probability doesn't flip from 1 to 0 at some difference of just one cent, which is what the "paradox" seems to be claiming.
It's seems to me that's more about how everything is realtive. There are days I would only accept millions, and days I'd accept significantly less. I wouldn't say there is a firm price on my finger because of that.
That is what I believe every time I haggle over buying an item. Sadly for me, Iโve found the evidence sorely lacking.
But seriously, the number varies widely based on the strategy employed by the asker. If you decrease the asking amount by a cent, youโll find that a person will likely stop at a price thatโs higher than if you decreased the amount by a dollar each time. You initial ask can also heavily influence the final number that is settled on as well.
I think the reason why this feels so strange is because all other factors are removed. There probably is an exact point at which you no longer will accept an offer, but as you approach that point your confidence in the decision will lower, making it more difficult to choose and accept. When you consider that factor, the situation seems more human and realistic, imo.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:30:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's easy. The mind is logarithmic. It doesn't think in exact amounts but in ratios and such. It's not that one penny makes a difference, but that an amount is either large enough or it isn't. There is actualkynprobably huge overlap between what a person will and will not accept depending on which angle you are coming from.
I'm not convinced of this. I think the 4 billion dollar offer is accepted because it just blows away what you think you can be offered. You can't recreate the effect with some intermediate number by constantly trying to lower it one cent.
This is partially why economics is not a natural science - human psychology plays too large a role. Well, that and the fact that if you undermine any of the fundamental assumption of economics (such as a concept of limited supply) the phenomenon itself ceases it exist - another difference from the natural sciences.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is exactly how I argue against arbitrary number selection. Never knew the name. Thanks redditor!
I understand the concept at play, but I would add that the difference in the first two sums are not really comparable.
A cent is money, money is what you take to the grocery store; 4 billions dollars is an entire life.
If the sum offered is essentially enough to never even consider working again then I would say that that's worth it, maybe even somewhat less.
What I'm saying is that dollars and cents are irrelevant , it's what kind of value you're willing to accept for parting with an appendage. That's a more complex, and I would say more accurate way to appraise the offer.
You could argue that they donโt exist objectively because the numbers mentioned previously would highly influence what number you would accept. For example if someone offered you 10 million right off the bat, you might say yes. But if someone offered a billion at first and then changed it to 10 million you would most likely decline. And on the other end of the spectrum if someone offered 5 dollars for your finger but then jumped up to 10 million dollars youโd most likely jump at the offer.
There is literally not a single amount of money I would be willing to lose a finger over. Everything I want money for, benefits greatly from having all 10 fingers.
Maybe, just MAYBE you could convince me to lose a toe for about $500,000,000,000 dollars. I would then spend a fuckload of that getting a perfect replacement toe re-attached.
I would say no to anything $100K below my "line". My line is $500K. Even at $400K I could really go either way so I could comfortably say no to $399.99K. It's dangerous to think in absolutes so I avoid saying min or max.
This also applies to arguments about abortion. People agree that an abortion 1 second before birth is murdered. While one second after conception isn't. At what point does it cross the line from murder to just terminating a group of cells.
The problem with this paradox is that it assumes rational actors.
Numerous psychological studies show that humans react differently under pressure and authority. Theoretically, you could always accept a counter offer "1 cent lower" until you couldn't, but such a negotiation would play havoc with a person's emotional state. They might reject the entire thing out of spite and declare they would need more money, or not go through with it at all. Even bargaining could influence a person's decision. They might also chicken out at the last minute. Any number of emotional outbursts could occur.
There is no way, in my opinion, to determine the exact cent price of a finger, because the act of attempting to find that price will paradoxically increase the uncertainty of said price.
In sports, there's a similar situation. In a world-record race, there are always at least some places you could go faster, or get better technology which allows you to go faster. However, you obviously can't do something like run the 100-meter sprint in 1 second. Somewhere there is the fastest ever possible time, but we don't and can't know what it is.
These numbers objectively exists, but they're impossible to grasp.
I'd say because they are heavily context-dependent. In this moment you might say yes to x โฌ, but the next moment you might turn out the offer for that amount....because it's a very emotional thing to consider and there is no exact threshold that will withstand emotional swings in your decision.
I think if you were to talk it out you would find the number. You'd keep going lower till you hit that point of hesitation. Then you work your way up until you're no longer hesitant again. And then you work your way down again. Eventually you'd find your minimum price. Though, change in circumstances could always make you reconsider
Anybody who has everyday bargained for anything in their life knows that the lowest price they started off settling for is different than the one the ended off with. That number is not exactly one cent, and it is not static at all.
It is literally impossible to be anything other than one cent and the number not being static has nothing to do with anything.
Regardless of what factors are influencing the situation there is always a one cent difference between the lowest offer you'd accept and the highest number you'd decline.
What I meant is that that one cent point only appears after a decision is made. Up until that point is a nebulous possibility affected by a constantly changing environment. The once cent point could be different if the decision was made a moment before or a moment after.
What I meant is that that one cent point only appears after a decision is made. Until that time it does not exist, or is at least a constantly changing point based on countless changing variables... That one cent point could be quite different had the decision been made a moment before or a moment after.
helm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:37:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pick the lowest number you can think of accepting, and tell me honestly that you'd decline a counter offer of exactly one cent less
Nope, the values will be in a constant flux.
SWA_90 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:40:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same(?) concept, as a brain teaser one of my teachers asked the class: if there was a heap of sand and we removed one grain of sand at a time, at what point does it stop being a heap of sand?
This might be slightly different though, because I'm not aware of any definable points as to when a bunch of grains of sand becomes a heap (by definition.)
The trolley problem is less about how many lives you'd save and more about the ethics of action vs inaction, although the comparison is valid.
meta4_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:45:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the similarity here says less about the nature of the trolley problem than it does about the aggregation approach in most consequentialist theories. Definitely you're right to say that the Problem is centred on action vs in action. But the fact that we can see such a strong parallel is, to me, strong testament to the fact that consequentialist theories revolve around mathematics, on some level.
It might take some time, but between my current debt and looking at tax regulations regarding prize money and income brackets, I could give you that figure to the cent.
Take a situation in which you have two neighbours, A and B. A and B both drink the exact same amount of alcohol at a bar, make the exact same decision to drive home, get into the exact same make and model of car, and drive down the exact same road to their houses, which are next door to each other. The only difference is that B leaves two minutes later than A. Just by chance, there happens to be a child crossing the street at the exact second that B is driving his car; B can't swerve fast enough thanks to the alcohol in his system, and the child is struck and killed. A and B would have been in the same situation, if they'd decided to leave at different times -- they both decided to drive drunk, and neither intended any harm.
From an ethical perspective, who's worse? On the one hand, B killed a child; A doesn't have that blood on his hands. On the other, B and A both made exactly the same decisions, and it seems ridiculous to suggest that the only thing that determines whether someone is a 'good' or 'bad' person (or in this case, I think it's safe to say, a 'bad' or a 'worse' person) is something that is entirely out of their hands.
EDIT: A lot of people are focusing on the drunk driver issue, so let's widen the net a bit:
Let's say it's a boxing match. Two boxers, W and X, get paired up with two other boxers, Y and Z, for a friendly training match. They're otherwise identical, but Z has an undiagnosed brain aneurysm that's just waiting to pop. He would have been fine, if he'd been working a nice office job, but as a boxer prone to getting punched in the head it's an accident waiting to happen. X throws his first punch, and down Z goes, dead. Sorry, kids... Daddy isn't coming home from the gym today.
So now you have three questions: 1) Should X feel morally culpable? On the one hand, he didn't know Z had a medical condition, and even if he did, he didn't choose to be placed with him; besides which, Z was a professional and knew the risks. On the other, X threw the punch that killed another human being; no one forced him to do it, and if he had decided not to do it -- not to engage in a risky activity, just like driving drunk -- then Z would still be alive. Is he in any way responsible for Z's death? Even just a little bit? And, if you take the line that X bears any responsibility, 2) Is W just as morally culpable? After all, it was only by the luck of the draw that he wasn't the one throwing the punch. He would have done the exact same thing and burst the exact same aneurysm, except for the fact that he wasn't the one fighting Z; he punched his own sparring partner, Y, just as hard, but with no medical condition Y was fine (if a little groggy afterwards). Most people seem pretty happy to take the line that Drunk Driver A is just as culpable as Drunk Driver B, so is there a difference in this case? And finally, if you say that W is just as morally culpable as X, 3) Are all boxers morally culpable for Z's death? After all, they hit Z just as much as W did -- and would have hit just as much as X did, had they been in the ring with him. Are they 'responsible'? Are you as responsible if you were the next boxer up on the docket, but weren't actually in the ring? What if you were the next boxer Z was due to fight? What if you were in the same gym, but had never met Z (but could, in theory, have found yourself sparring with him one week, if you decided to visit on a Tuesday rather than a Friday)? Can the fact that you boxed in college thirty years ago make you partially responsible for the death of a man halfway around the world? We're getting to what I hope would be a bit ridiculous now... but where's the line?
EDIT 2: The majority of people in the comments are here to tell me how obvious this is, and then are about a 50-50 split on whether one driver is worse (obviously) or whether they're equally bad (obviously). Welcome to moral philosophy, guys.
Yes, that's true. If you go back in time and kill Hitler before he starts murdering innocent people, you have killed an innocent man. He would go on to commit the worst crime against humanity in living memory if left alive, but he hadn't done anything yet at the point when you killed him so you now have an innocent man's blood on your hands. However, if you have the knowledge that he will kill all those people and have the ability to prevent it at the cost of the life of a man who was innocent at the time, you would be partially responsible for their deaths if you failed to act. It's really just the trolley problem with the stranger on the bridge - let the trolley continue going and run over 10 million people, bearing only partial responsibility because you didn't act, or be fully, directly responsible for murdering a man but save the people on the tracks.
seeasea ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 21:25:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And to add to this, as I've been contemplating this (like the trolley problem). When is the point at which it's ok to kill Hitler?
After election? After kristallnacht? Night of long knives? Wansee conference? Would five minutes before be ok?
Also, of you were to accept killing baby Hitler as moral, would it be ok to kill his pregnant mother before? Or his grandmother?
What about Goebbels? Or which Nazi in the hierarchy does it stop becoming ok?
Recrewt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:08:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think this is not that complicated. The deciding factor is simply the knowledge about what your action truly causes (and if that would be "good" for humanity in the long run - whatever that means). If someone had the ability to aquire that knowledge, and the outcome would be good in the long run, in my opinion it doesn't matter if they kill Hitler 5 minutes before he became "bad" Hitler, at his birth, or even kill his mother if she would have given other possible baby-Hitlers the gift of life.
This is just a theoretical problem. If you don't have true knowledge - which is what we humans have to deal with - it's never moral to make decisions like this.
Not to mention the people. There are probably countless people who would never have been born had it not been for ww2, and who knows what would change if they hadn't existed.
The same argument can be made that killing some random person does not necessarily make you a bad person. Was it an accident? Were they threatening someone? Even killing someone in exactly the situation as described doesn't make you a bad person, if Albert Schweitzer had done exactly what was written, does it invalidate all of the good he did?
All I am saying is that the problem is not as ethically simple as presented.
it's better not to do anything. people tend to always forget that they would create infinite possibilities by changing something in the past- big or small.
seeasea ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:28:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In many moral philosophies, it's always better to choose to the possibility of bad over the certainty of bad.
Id pick killing Hitler over any potential problem that cannot be predicted. There is a 100% of a Holocaust by doing nothing, and of the infinite probabilities, a less than 50% chance of one happening by killing him.
That said, id kill Hitler even if it only reduced the probability by 1%
Neither. If your actions weren't motivated by a desire to end the actions of the boy, which they obviously can't be, then ethically they are no different, imo. However, obviously for the worlds sake A's action is a net positive.
Btw could u enlighten me on the difference between ethics and morals? I'm really interested in this thread but times when I would say "morally" people are saying "ethically".
Yes, an interesting point. This could break down into a determinism/multiverse debate really quickly. The whole thing is just a set of thought experiments.
Yeah I feel that itโs really hard to have one set of discussions without the other, which is what makes philosophy so great but also so miserable sometimes.
martixy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:58:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is an old anime(in name mostly) called Monster.
It explores that theme(along with so many other mature topics) in an amazing way.
Thank you for giving me the philosophical words. I was thinking in terms of process analysis.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:41:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, it's not luck. It's chance. Chance isn't mysterious, it's just math. Morality lead to our decision to engage in behaviors, and the math that we'll face consequence is just that, math.
I'd say ethically, they're both equally bad. I view them both equally, so I'm not totally sure why this is supposed to be a paradox.
seeasea ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:31:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But the punishment is vastly different.
To the point that there is an article in read yesterday of a kid being charged for murder because while he was robbing someone his accomplice was shot by the police. He is considered, under the law, responsible for all resulting actions from his crime, even unintended, and even if he want involved.
Oh, to clarify, I think 'luck' absolutely plays a factor in morals and shouldn't be an exception since it plays a factor in literally everything else. It's not fair, but everything in life is playing probabilities, and if you hit a kid while driving drunk, you knew that was a risk and lost.
With your specific wording, at the moment of choosing, no it was not, but his action ethically led to a much worse outcome. He could have easily controlled for it, but chose not to, so his ethics must be held accountable. The kid didn't choose to get hit by the car either, so driver A is solely responsible. The other driver, while endangering those around him and making a gamble others may be forced to unwillingly participate in, did not lead to the same outcome. An absent consequence cannot be judged to the same extent a material one can.
Another aspect that is interesting to consider. Is he morally worse by hitting the child if he would have hit the kid sober anyway? Was the alcohol even what lead to the accident, and if not, is he any more innocent? And further, how much risk, such as getting into a car in the first place, can be morally justified? By choosing to drive you do choose to put those around you in danger they may not otherwise have been in. Usually that is for a society to collectively decide, and factors like the net benefit inform the decision (cars are quite useful), but that is one I do not really have an answer for.
They're still equal, because the reality in which that child was a mass murderer never existed; it remained in the hypothetical (unless you're implying the multiverse theory, which would make this waaay more complicated). That child did nothing. And conversely, accidentally doing something that makes the world a better place (killing a mass murderer when they're young, for example), does not make you a better person, or less of a bad person. You never intended to do that good thing.
I think of it this way: the ethical faults of a person in a situation is the product of the consequence and intent of the action. The consequence starts from 0 with no negative consequence and increases with the severity of the consequence. The intent starts at 1 as full intent and planning for the consequence, decreasing to 0 being the societal norm for reasonable effort to prevent the consequence.
As for the second question, both would have zero ethical fault since neither had previous knowledge. The societal expectation for preventing a consequence practically unforseeable is no effort. Therefore both people would have 0 intent and therefore have 0 ethical responsibility for the consequence.
This is why a lot of judicial systems are not results based. The US system is kind of unique in just how results based it is and how much the result of the action rather than the action itself weigh.
There was a controversy a while back mostly from English media that a Dutch court sentenced someone who was speeding and killed a child to a very mild sentence but basically that the child died had no relevance to the sentence; the sentence was purely for speeding and the child shouldn't even be on the road; if the child had died but the person wasn't speeding then there wouldn't even be a sentence.
Essentially the child dying is the only reason they found out that he was speeding though; if a child wasn't there he would've been out scot free most likely as no one would ever find out.
It's also why I believe that no justice system should differentiate between a crime itself and an attempt of that crime; murder and attempted murder should be treated the same.
That's why manslaughter is a crime. Speeding is not a felony, but you still get fined for increasing the risk to other drivers and pedestrians. If your speeding kills someone, you don't just get charged with speeding. Your negligence has increased the risk of someone getting killed. When someone does get killed because of your speeding, you're charged with manslaughter. (Criminal negligence causing death in legalese.)
That's what they do in the US where the justice system seems to be highly results oriented.
Other places have less results oriented systems and don't punish you more or less based on things outside of your controlโthis is in line with the general philosophy that say Norway or Sweden have a preventive justice system where the purpose is to reduce the occurrence of crimes whereas the US has a retributive justice system where the purpose is to provide the satisfaction of retribution to the people.
On the one hand, morally speaking, I can't read any of these comments and come to the conclusion that America's system is better than Europe's, ethically speaking. It just isn't. Maybe it's the way everyone words it (because bashing America always gets upvotes), but I can't pick up on any emotional trigger words. Europe's system, from a neutral perspective, flat-out seems better for society, and definitely for the person who accidentally killed a child. Going based off mental intent makes so much more sense in trying to produce a law-abiding society.
On the other hand, if you kill a fucking kid, you should get your ass beat (figuratively). Like, if your actions are responsible for the death of a person, how is it justifiable to let you walk scot-free?
On the other hand, if you kill a fucking kid, you should get your ass beat (figuratively). Like, if your actions are responsible for the death of a person, how is it justifiable to let you walk scot-free?
Well first off I don't think that the person you murder is a child is relevant in Dutch law at all and do you also think that someone who tosses a computer out of the window and there just happens to be someone down there should be punished for murder opposed to the person who does it with nothing down there getting off free? It's purely within the realm of chance.
Galivis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:09:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Absolutely. If your negligence hurts/kills someone who was not doing something wrong, then you deserved to get charged with more compared to someone who did the same action but with different results. At the end of the day, both the action and the results need to be considered.
Well that's just an irrational system based on retribution that doesn't strategically stop things from happening and on top of that a complete lottery where pure luck decides what punishment people get.
OK, try this one on for size. Say you're walking your dog in the park -- a big dog, Great Dane sized. He's a slobbery fellow, but he doesn't mean any harm to anyone. One day, his leash breaks and he bounds over to a group of small children, scaring the crap out of them -- not because he bites them, but he's so big and so fast that they're understandably terrified. You chase after him and manage to grab the leash in the last instant before he reaches the children. He, of course, just wants to play. You run over and apologise, and take your dog on your way.
Now, let's say that a week earlier, the same thing happened -- another Great Dane broke his leash and bounded over to a group of small children, but his owner wasn't quite as fast as you and the dog put one of the kids into hospital; for a while, it looked like she wasn't going to pull through at all. That little girl is now missing three fingers and is going to have a scarred face forever. That dog was put down as a danger to society.
Should the bitey dog have been put down? It was an accident that it got off the leash, but no one knows what caused it to snap. Who's to say he wouldn't bite another kid, with an even worse result next time?
Should your dog be put down? Technically, it's the exact same situation... except for the end result. If you hadn't been quite as fast -- if luck hadn't played a part -- who's to say that your dog wouldn't have killed that little girl?
If it's consistency you're looking for, it seems that your dog would have to be put down even though there were no negative consequences -- that gets rid of the 'pure luck' angle you're talking about. That said, I don't think many people would argue that it's a 'just' decision. Sometimes the actual consequences do need to be taken into account, and not just the worst case scenario version.
Consequences can be evidence. You have no way of knowing that the second dog would bite anyone, and innocent until proven guilty. But however the first dog obviously had violent intent.
So you're saying that two people who both fired a shot against a police officer - one missed completely but the other hit him in the head and killed him instantly - should both be charged with murder? Or are you saying neither should be charged with anything? Same intent from both, remember.
I'm on my Vespa. Car pulls out from a parking lot without looking. I crash into it and die. Are you now saying that every car driver that has ever pulled out from a parking lot without looking - regardless of outcome - should all be done for manslaughter? If no, are you then saying the person that pulled out and killed me should get no punishment for ending my life?
Are you now saying that every car driver that has ever pulled out from a parking lot without looking - regardless of outcome - should all be done for manslaughter?
No, just for a minor traffic violation of taking a turn without looking.
If no, are you then saying the person that pulled out and killed me should get no punishment for ending my life?
No, that person should get the same punishment for the traffic violation I described above. That it led to your death was outside of that person's control.
No, that person should get the same punishment for the traffic violation I described above. That it led to your death was outside of that person's control.
...but it wasn't, because my death was caused by negligence. It wasn't an accident. It was a direct consequence of someone's negligence. I think we both know that if your mother/father/daughter/son/wife/husband died because someone threw rocks off a bridge and one of them hit them in the head, you wouldn't be ok with the only punishment for that person being a ยฃ100 fine for antisocial behaviour.
...but it wasn't, because my death was caused by negligence. It wasn't an accident. It was a direct consequence of someone's negligence.
And they are punished for the negligence; they are punished exactly as far as the actions were inside of their control; the negligence they can control but not the result of it.
I think we both know that if your mother/father/daughter/son/wife/husband died because someone threw rocks off a bridge and one of them hit them in the head, you wouldn't be ok with the only punishment for that person being a ยฃ100 fine for antisocial behaviour.
Hardly, the reason why I live in a place with a legal system that isn't results-oriented is because people voted for it. Retribution plays a very small role in it and most people here don't agree with the concept altogether.
Yes, that is the democratically voted law in the Netherlands? There is no crime of "vehicular homicide" here and people consider the US mentality that people who crash into other people and something bad happens being punished greater to be an incomprehensible mentality?
You get punished more if you deliberately try to run someone over with a car.
Yes, that is the democratically voted law in the Netherlands?
Just because the majority voted for a political structure that eventually established such a justice system, doesn't mean you would be ok with a ยฃ100 fine for someone killing your loved one.
You also seem blissfully unaware that by giving a ยฃ100 fine, the person who killed your loved one through negligence has not learned the meaning of consequence. They can go back to the bridge the next day and keep throwing rocks, as there is no consequence to doing so. They get fined, sure, but maybe they think it's worth ยฃ100 to throw rocks all day.
If you instead locked them up for manslaughter, they would learn that all actions in life have consequences, and throwing rocks off a bridge is probably not a great pastime once they get out of prison.
Just because the majority voted for a political structure that eventually established such a justice system, doesn't mean you would be ok with a ยฃ100 fine for someone killing your loved one.
It implies the people by and large are okay with it.
It turns out not everyone is out for retribution. It's not "killing", no one killed anyone, an element of the crime of murder is intent to kill and that wasn't there.
Someone made a minor screwup and someone died as a consequence.
You also seem blissfully unaware that by giving a ยฃ100 fine, the person who killed your loved one through negligence has not learned the meaning of consequence.
They've learnt exactly as much as the person who did the same thing when someone didn't die; whther someone dies or not is outside of their control.
If you instead locked them up for manslaughter, they would learn that all actions in life have consequences, and throwing rocks off a bridge is probably not a great pastime once they get out of prison.
No they would learn a blatant logical fallacy of results-oriented thinking.
It turns out not everyone is out for retribution. It's not "killing", no one killed anyone, an element of the crime of murder is intent to kill and that wasn't there.
I never said murder. I said manslaughter. You don't need intent for manslaughter.
Someone made a minor screwup and someone died as a consequence.
Not really a minor screwup for you, is the point. One of your loved ones died. I wouldn't call that minor.
They've learnt exactly as much as the person who did the same thing when someone didn't die; whther someone dies or not is outside of their control.
It's not out of their control, as they knew the risk in throwing rocks off a bridge. It wasn't an accident that someone died, it was a likely scenario. And they still did it.
No they would learn a blatant logical fallacy of results-oriented thinking.
Ok, and they would still be unable to kill more people by throwing rocks off a bridge, since it's hard to do that when you're imprisoned. Society wins.
I never said murder. I said manslaughter. You don't need intent for manslaughter.
You don't need intent for involuntary manslaughter in the US but our justice system indeed works differently.
(Voluntary) manslaugher in US law still requires intent to kill but murder requires premeditation; the intent typically rises in the moment.
Not really a minor screwup for you, is the point. One of your loved ones died. I wouldn't call that minor.
And that's results oriented thinking.
If you judge people based on the results of their actions when the results are outside of their control you create a lottery of a justice system.
It's not out of their control, as they knew the risk in throwing rocks off a bridge. It wasn't an accident that someone died, it was a likely scenario. And they still did it.
Yeah, and the person who does the exact same action and controls for the exact same things and there doesn't happen to walk someone there gets a lighter punishment.
Both were equally irresponsible but one had worse luck and the one with worse luck gets punished more; that's a lottery of a justice system.
Ok, and they would still be unable to kill more people by throwing rocks off a bridge, since it's hard to do that when you're imprisoned. Society wins.
Except in your version the person who also throws rocks but no one dies evades punishment and will also just continue to do it and the next time will die because whether people are walking there is pure chance.
(Voluntary) manslaugher in US law still requires intent to kill but murder requires premeditation
I know the definition of murder, thanks.
If you judge people based on the results of their actions when the results are outside of their control you create a lottery of a justice system.
Again: it's not out of their control. It wasn't an accident. The decision to throw a rock off a bridge comes with risk and consequence. The person throwing the rock knows fully well that there is risk that the rock will hit someone walking below.
You seem to think that all "unlucky outcomes" are accidents. They aren't.
Yeah, and the person who does the exact same action and controls for the exact same things and there doesn't happen to walk someone there gets a lighter punishment.
Well obviously, because no one got hurt. The consequence of throwing the rock was nothing, so nothing happens.
You are essentially saying that every time you change lanes you should get fined because there could have been a car in the adjacent lane so you could have crashed into them. Your decision is all that matters, not the outcome of that decision, remember?
Galivis ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 02:25:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is not pure luck. If you avoid the illegal action in the first place then you don't have to worry about it. Do you really believe if someone throws a heavy object out the window and it kills someone walking on the sidewalk below, there should be little to no punishment? It is either that, or you charge the person who did not hit anyone with attempted murder.
Now the America system does need to change to focus more on rehab than punishment, but at the same time there does need to be some sort of punishment to help act as a deterrent (though drastically scaled down from how it is currently used in the American system).
It is not pure luck. If you avoid the illegal action in the first place then you don't have to worry about it.
And two people who do exactly the same thing get punished differently based on what essentially is a lottery.
The argument of "If you avoid the iliigal action..." can just as well be justified to give people of different races and sexes harsher punishments for the same crime with "well if you avoid the illegal action..."
The fundamental principle of a nation of laws that when people commit the same crime they receive the same punishment.
Do you really believe if someone throws a heavy object out the window and it kills someone walking on the sidewalk below, there should be little to no punishment?
It should be exactly the same punishment someone receives when someone was not or was randomly standing there.
Throwing heavy objects out of the window should be a form of criminal negligence but the result of it should not pay into the magnitude of the crime.
Now the America system does need to change to focus more on rehab than punishment, but at the same time there does need to be some sort of punishment to help act as a deterrent (though drastically scaled down from how it is currently used in the American system).
But the point is that if you punish people differently for the sake action just because the outcome was different based on factors outside of their control that doesn't create a stronger deterrent for unfavourable outcomes because by definition the outcome is outside of their control.
And two people who do exactly the same thing get punished differently based on what essentially is a lottery.
The point obviously being here that both were negligent, which they shouldn't have been in the first place. One did little damage, but the other changed the lives of a few dozen friends and family members of the deceased. There needs to be some consequence to that, since it wasn't an accident - it was negligent behaviour, borderline psychopathic since the person clearly lacked the ability to think about the potential consequence of throwing a computer out of a window. That person KNOWS there could be people below the window, and yet threw their computer out anyway.
If the person accidentally dropped their computer out a window then I agree that there should be no punishment. But if you throw a computer out a window knowing full well that people could get hurt, there needs to be a consequence to that gross negligence.
Imagine if someone killed your mother/father/wife/husband because they stood on a bridge throwing rocks at people 100 feet below. Would you be ok with that person only getting a ยฃ100 fine for being a twat on a bridge? No further consequence needed because that person was just "unlucky" (even though that person knew full well that one of the rocks could hit someone)?
Galivis ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:43:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The fundamental principle of a nation of laws that when people commit the same crime they receive the same punishment.
The issue though is they did not commit the same crime. One performed negligence since they threw a heavy object out the window. The other killed someone due to the negligence.
that doesn't create a stronger deterrent for unfavourable outcomes because by definition the outcome is outside of their control
Yes it does. The deterrent is you do not throw a heavy object out the window.
The issue though is they did not commit the same crime. One performed negligence since they threw a heavy object out the window. The other killed someone due to the negligence.
Yeah, and then what you crime you do or do not commit in this system is based on chance and factors outside of the criminal's control.
Yes it does. The deterrent is you do not throw a heavy object out the window.
And it is completely ineffective deterrent-wise to give people a different punishment based on actions outside of their control since they can't control them.
The higher punishment when someone dies when they can't control whether someone will die or not can't possibly deter people from letting people die since by definition it is outside of their control.
Same crime. They threw a heavy object out the window. That was their action. Whether it resulted in death or not is pure chance and cannot be attributed to them any more than the death of a child in China can be attributed to me for owning a phone. Yes, their action increased the likelihood of it happening, but it happening is outside their control. Do you believe we should have a roulette wheel in the court room to decide how long someone is sentenced for? Because that is essentially what you are advocating; that random chance should impact sentencing for a personโs actions.
Yes it does, the deterrent is you do not throw a heavy object out the window
Nope, the deterrent is you donโt kill someone while throwing a heavy object out a window. Thatโs what gets you the harsh sentence. In fact, sometimes thatโs the only thing thatโll get you sentenced at all as some systems require a demonstration of harm in negligence cases before it can be pursued.
However, you never PLAN to kill someone when you throw a heavy object out the window. Its not murder. You think โThis is safe and Iโll be fineโ. So you throw it out the window because thatโs fine, its just luck as to whether what you do is really wrong or not.
Punishing the very act of throwing the heavy object out the window as if it had hit someone, even when it didnโt, would resolve this. It is the act of throwing it out that window that is being punished, not the results of a roulette wheel.
Punishing the very act of throwing the heavy object out the window as if it had hit someone, even when it didnโt, would resolve this. It is the act of throwing it out that window that is being punished, not the results of a roulette wheel.
I think it should be in the middle; obviously it should be far lower than actual intent to kill someone with it but I think that "a reckless act which a reasonable person could foresee could lead to serious damage to another human being" should be punishable regardless of whether the damage happened and it should be punished the same if the damage happened.
This is why speeding is illegal whether or not an accident actually happened.
I consider the US system clearly superior when it comes to the primary goal of justice, namely protecting the innocent.
Let's say we have two people fire a gun at another man during a conflict. Person A misses and hits the man in the leg and runs away, person B however is in the same situation but puts one in his head killing him.
Now their intent was no different. They are neither one morally superior. But if we punish person A the same as person B we've provided a peculiar incentive. Person A is logically better off shooting his victim again killing him (no witnesses) since he's getting the same punishment either way.
We set up our laws so that you can always help your self by stopping doing further harm. It's not for the sake of the offender, it's for the good of society that we positively incentivize doing no more damage.
If you stop before killing the person it's something like aggrevated assault. An element of the crime of attempted murder is intent to kill and stopping before someone is dead makes it very hard for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone had intent to kill.
You mentioned "attempted murder", "aggrevated (sic) assault" both without any disclaimers like "loosely translated from Dutch". You also posted "beyond a reasonable doubt" an American term.
if we're limiting this philosophical discussion to Dutch law, here is a provision of Dutch law I found.
"An attempt to commit a serious offence shall be punishable if the intention of the offender has
revealed itself by a commencement of the performance of the criminal act."
You mentioned "attempted murder", "aggrevated (sic) assault" both without any disclaimers like "loosely translated from Dutch".
No these are just internationally recognized crimes that are in the law books of many countries.
You also posted "beyond a reasonable doubt" an American term.
Really because I'm pretty sure that's just an English term and used in almost all English jurisdictions and is just translated into Dutch as "onomstotelijk bewezen" which is used there.
What separates murder from attempted murder is the death. Both have the person with the intent to kill.
Of course it does; if you stop before someone is dead and in fact even try to give that person medical treatment it's very hard to make compelling you had intent to kill that person.
When you are driving a car, you are responsible for paying attention and avoiding dangerous situations. Even if the child "shouldn't" have been in the road, the driver is responsible for attempting to avoid the child. The fact that the driver had no intention of killing someone lessens the crime, but he is still guilty of taking a life through negligence.
No actually if you're on a 80 KM/h road there's no reasonable way to avoid a child that just appears in the middle of the road. If you abide by all traffic regulations and pay attention you'll still run over it.
In fact I'd probably say that in this particular case the speeding had nothing to do with the death of the child and if the driver drove within the speeding limit and the child was there it still wouldn't died most likely.
Meh attempted murder is still punished differently from successful murder in NL.
Also the new current government is gravitating more towards a slightly more retributive system of justice sadly.
If you ask me the only purpose of the justice system should be to reduce the occurrence of crimeโretribution can't play any factor especially when it does the opposite of reducing crimes as making criminals suffer in prison breaks their psyche and increases the chance of recidivism
I consider the US system clearly superior when it comes to the primary goal of justice, namely protecting the innocent.
Let's say we have two people fire a gun at another man during a conflict. Person A misses and hits the man in the leg and runs away, person B however is in the same situation but puts one in his head killing him.
Now their intent was no different. They are neither one morally superior. But if we punish person A the same as person B we've provided a peculiar incentive. Person A is logically better off shooting his victim again killing him (no witnesses) since he's getting the same punishment either way.
We set up our laws so that you can always help your self by stopping doing further harm. It's not for the sake of the offender, it's for the good of society that we positively incentivize doing no more damage.
That's why murder and attempted murder must not be treated the same.
No, because if you actually run away after witnissing that someone is not dead and will likely survive it's very hard for the prosecutors to prove intent to kill if you didn't finish the job when you could have.
The point is intent to kill, if you shoot in the leg and don't shoot again whilst having ample opportunity to kill you clearly don't have an intent to kill.
That's simply not true. In either case both men could have had the intent to kill, and one changed his mind after seeing the reality of hurting someone and coming to his senses (this is in fact not unusual). And the mere act of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger in and of itself is plenty to demonstrate intent to kill.
Or conversely neither could have had the intent to kill and one did so accidently. In which case you are basically left charging both for attempted murder or letting both off the same as someone who randomly shot a gun in the air.
In NHL hockey a high sticking penalty is 4 minutes rather than the usual 2 if the person you harmed starts bleeding. Intent may be same for a player, but if the outcome is more visibly upsetting it's worse.
I think when they made the rule in hockey, the idea was "if you high stick another player, it may be unintentional but it still costs you two minutes. If you high stick another player hard enough that they bleed, it is an additional two minutes because typically the force required to do so is more than the former case. So even though the intent was the same, I think the additional two minutes stems from the probability you wielded your stick more violently than you should, even though that may not be the case. I see what you mean though it's still very similar to the original post though, just slightly different.
Yeah, really depends where they were hit. Such a stupid rule, sometimes you see players high sticking intentionally but no blood, and sometimes it's completely accidental but the guy starts bleeding.
Because in the heat of action they get mad and just put their stick in their face. I'm not saying full on smashing. But that still did happen. Watch this :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esETGHljQi4
When I read the original comment, the first thing I thought of was hockey. Although I was thinking more about the league's knack for coming down harder on dirty hits if they actually cause injury.
This is all to say that I happy someone else was thinking of hockey, too. Go Pens.
In English law, "actual bodily harm", causing bruising or abrasions, is different from "wounding", piercing all layers of skin.
Offences against the person include minor forms of battery (any unlawful touching of another person); its complimentary offence, assault (causing the apprehension of a battery, even when one has not yet occurred); and various more serious offences which are based on assault and battery (together called "common assault"). This includes assault occasioning actual bodily harm, where the victim suffers injuries such as bruising or skin abrasions (the converse being an injury that is "transient and trifling"); wounding (a piercing of all layers of the skin); and causing grievous bodily harm (injuries more serious than in actual bodily harm, for example broken bones).
I guess if you punch someone and give them a black eye that's actual body harm while if you split their brow open with a similar punch it's "wounding", a different crime.
Many high sticking calls have very light contact. To draw blood would require more contact, which would be more reckless/illegal, which implies different intent/behavior
A more severe punishment for a more severe crime.
It's not 100% up to chance whether the guy bleeds or not, it's up to how hard you hit him in the face
In theory yes but not all areas of the face have to be hit with the same force to draw blood. Also different materials (stick blade versus shaft versus butt end) making it really more about blood vs not blood. It's an imoerfect system, not asking the league to change it, but you get my point.
One of the biggest complaints about the AFL judiciary is that it's so results based.
Tackle someone or bump and collect them high, and they go off concussed and you'll be likely to miss a match.
If they get up and keep playing, probably a fine at worst.
Penalties in hockey are so inconsistent that you can't take them too seriously, just have to be prepared for bullshit and a lot of random luck that can decide games. It's the nature of the sport.
I honestly don't know. On the one hand, I'm not religious; I don't believe there's a guiding hand from any deity. On the other, we're all just made up of chemicals, and chemicals are just atoms, and atoms are just quarks and leptons, and there's nothing to suggest that any of that behaves in any way that's somehow not deterministic (or at least, probabilistic), even if the outcome isn't necessarily knowable ahead of time.
In the end, I think what matters is that we act as though we have free will. Imagine a scenario where you have two playing cards, one red and one black. You turn them over, and tell me to pick one. If I pick red, you'll kill me; if I pick black, I'll be set free. On the one hand, it matters very much which one I choose... but in the absence of knowledge, which of the two cards I choose isn't important at all; they're identical, and I have no way of being able to tell which is which. I act as though I have free will in this situation -- I make a choice -- but in reality, the choice I make doesn't matter. Whether I live or die is down to what is effectively the universe doing its thing.
It matters because without the assumption that you have free will, life becomes entirely meaningless. If everything you do is already determined, then what's the point? And if you start thinking like this, then can you really do or choose anything to help yourself, if there really is no free will at all?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:03:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So my point is:
Atheism is the ultimate biological determinism. Random processes resulted in human consciousness, which is just happenstance programming.
Without ultimate meaning, without ultimate accountability, no action or decision matters. Maybe I help someone, maybe I hurt them, it doesn't matter. "Help" and "hurt" are just incidental constructs of our perceptions, so who cares?
If there's no supernatural aspect to the universe, like atheism proposes, then how is there a supernatural and transcendent value to human life? I'm not saying atheists are terrible people that don't value human life, I'm saying that it is only possible for them to be humanist because they were first in a society that does/did believe in a transcendent higher value of human life. If society was structured to be built entirely off of atheism from the ground up, or if deist influence was completely removed from society, there wouldn't be any humanists. Atheism's (without any outside influence from other ideologies) logical conclusion is in fact that fellow humans are no greater or lesser than animals aside from their usefulness to you as you try to manipulate or dominate them for personal gain.
I think it's unfair to say I am confusing atheism and nihilism. I know fully well that there are plenty of atheists who are not nihilists. I am saying that nihilism is atheism's furthest logical conclusion.
Religion is not the only source of compassion, but religions that teach compassion add so much more of it to the world.
Every human being has an innate desire to pursue what they perceive as good. So if I may ask, what is your personal ultimate good for you to pursue? Suicide? Family? Destruction? Or philanthropy?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:35:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So as long you pursue what you perceive as good, this is OK?
Philanthropy is only an incidental construct under atheistic framework. It's only temporal, perceptual, and arises out of random processes. It doesn't matter if I kill myself, or kill other people because we're all just dirt in the end.
Don't like it? That's OK. That's your personal morality. Doesn't matter to me.
But in the end, we have an instinct to seek comfort and security due to our survival instinct. Because of the constructs of society, you'd be punished and perhaps even have your own life taken for killing another human. So it would matter to you, because ceasing to exist is terrifying to the psyche.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:53:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Herein lies the issue - as long as you don't get caught, it's OK. In the atheistic biological determinism model, raw, pure, self interest is preferable. So if it means killing someone or protecting them, whatever works for the organism, so be it.
What I'm saying is, people can say they don't believe in God, but we function as a society as if we do.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:59:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:44:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Where do the rules arise from then?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:18:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:08:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think it's a silly answer.
You have a consciousness you don't even understand. An observable world more complex than we can understand or even catalog. You don't come across a house and say "well, I guess it arose from random processes."
Does it introduce more questions? For sure. But those questions have been the cornerstone for the foundations of beliefs for billions of people for all of history. Questions like, if there is a transcendent force behind it all, who or what is it? What does it/he/she expect of me? How do I live it light of this?
Sir Isaac Newton believed in God. Was he an idiot?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:26:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Seeing a complex object and assuming a builder is stupid?
Because there is no way for a society to function at all if there is not a transcendent value to unite everyone. With no transcendent value, society would turn to chaos immediately.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:54:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. People rage about Judeo-Christian values but they rely on them every waking moment. The justice system, the economy, fundamental basic rights - that shit only exists because of the reformation and western values.
rsfc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:47:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nonsense. One could argue, and many have that belief in an all-knowing god means that all things are predetermined. Calvinism was a popular Christian sect that basically believed this.
People care because their is a biological imperative to care. Latent and taught morals are largely to the benefit of our species, which is why they exist.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:52:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am well-versed in Calvinism. In one sense, yes, Calvinism states that things are predetermined. But it also posits that God limits his power to involve human agency which he has imbued. When the Bible says that man was created in God's image, that doesn't mean physically, it means that we have the ability to imagine a world that does not yet exist and create it.
In evolutionary biology, even if humans have been given biological imperatives to care, it is simply a coincidental construct and is meaningless as to whether you believe it is right or wrong. In fact, right and wrong are meaningless concepts.
I said deterministic or probabilistic, because I don't think it makes much difference; either way, there's no guiding consciousness behind it. There's nothing that could be said to be imposing 'will' on the system, if you get me.
You're right, I missed the probability. With that being said, probability is a simplifying tool we use because we don't understand the mechanism behind the outcome, or the mechanism has too many factors to calculate within a reasonable time frame. It's an estimation not an objective statement of reality. Therefore, that mechanism can very well be free will as one of the determining factors as outlandish as it sounds.
You might be interested to learn about Bell's inequality. This interpretation that probability just handles cases where's too complicated to compute in a reasonable time or we don't have access to the information is called the hidden variables model of the universe, and through experimentation we can show that the universe fundementally doesn't work this way. Super mind blowing :)
It's definitely interesting and goes mostly over my head. But from what I read, it doesn't seem to contradict hidden variables without certain simplifying assumptions. It only puts limits on what does hidden variables can be.
You're right, there is an assumption of locality for the hidden variables, so it definitely doesn't rule out global hidden variables. But i think that it's a reasonable hypothesis to lose faith in a hidden variables model of the universe. Of course i am open to the idea that this may be overturned in the future.
It could be, but you're still just sidestepping the question of whether or not the probabilistic effects at a quantum scale are 'guided' or not. I don't see any reason to believe they are. If it's 'because we don't understand the mechanism behind the outcome, or the mechanism has too many factors to calculate within a reasonable time frame', then it's deterministic even if we don't understand how; if there really is something random lurking in the machinery, then it doesn't matter because it's still not an imposed will. If I did see a reason to believe they were guided, I might just as readily believe in a god or fate figure directly impacting human events.
It just feels a bit like kicking the can down the road.
I'm not side-stepping it's just a question that can't be answered. I truly believe I gave an honest possibility that it could be guided by a greater power. I just don't have the ability to go any further than that. It doesn't need to be random. Does anything discount free will from appearing random to our eyes if it existed but not actually be random?
It just feels a bit like kicking the can down the road
Agreed. Because I don't believe anyone can actually answer the question.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:07:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, you die because the maniac with the gun shoots you for picking the wrong card. There's nothing universal about it. That guy "chose" to shoot you. There wasn't some random sequence of events in his brain... Or wait... Was there? Everything in his life did lead up to him buying the gun and eventuality pulling the trigger. Just like everything in your life led up to you picking the wrong card.
Try not picking a card. The cards wouldnโt exactly work as Schrรถdingerโs cats as I would know exactly what they are and the outcomes of each choice. One choice would be life and the other death. Weather you live or die would be down to what card your subconscious and life experience make you pick. Its not the universe doing its thing, itโs you.
I do. I figure that if free will doesn't exist and everything's predetermined, then the predetermination has led me to believe in free will, and since I don't have the free will to change that belief, I shouldn't.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:17:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Determinism (the idea that the universe follows strict natural laws, so that everything that happens is a necessary consequence of things that happened before) does not necessarily imply that there is no free will. On the contrary, the majority belief among academic philosophers on this question is compatibilism, meaning that free will is compatible with determinism.
This view never made sense to me, assuming everything is predetermined then there is simply no room for free will. You can still think that you have it but it does not change reality.
There are many different accounts of compatibilism. One goes something like this: my brain receives information, and performs actions based on this information. This is what making a choice means. Let's say I make a choice for good reasons. Now, if I was put in the identical situation once more (including my memories etc), I would make the same choice again. This is determinism. But I made that choice for good reasons, so why would I not make the same choice again? This is compatibilism.
What it comes down to is that your intuitive conception of "free will" is incoherent. With a coherent definition, free will becomes compatible with determinism.
To go deeper into this, I recommend Daniel Dennet's book Elbow Room.
As far as my personal interpretation of "free will" goes, if an outcome is always the same then it doesn't matter why you "chose" that if you or your brain is predetermined to go that way.
First, determined doesn't mean predictable. Max Tegmark has pointed out that there's probably no way to calculate the outcome of a decision other than actually making it, meaning that the only way the outcome can come about is by you taking in the information, consciously weighing the alternatives, and deciding what you want to do. Thus, it's not like you're just riding along a path that was laid out for you - you are actively participating in creating that path. The fact that there's only one way it can go doesn't change that.
Second, how could it make sense for you to make a different decision in an identical situation? If you had good reasons to make choice A in one run of the situation, why would you ever want to make choice B in another run? Since everything is exactly the same, you always prefer the same alternative. The only way I can see if getting out of this is to add true random chance to your decision process (quantum mechanics might provide this) - but how could adding random noise to your decision ever make you more free? To me, it just seems to make you less free.
First, determined doesn't mean predictable. Max Tegmark has pointed out that there's probably no way to calculate the outcome of a decision other than actually making it, meaning that the only way the outcome can come about is by you taking in the information, consciously weighing the alternatives, and deciding what you want to do. Thus, it's not like you're just riding along a path that was laid out for you - you are actively participating in creating that path. The fact that there's only one way it can go doesn't change that.
I'm not talking about predictability, I'm just going off from the assumption that if everything is predetermined, then so must be the process to "decide" something. You don't choose what you like or dislike or how your brain works so why does it matter if you get to participate? Aren't you just a slave to the circumstances?
Second, how could it make sense for you to make a different decision in an identical situation? If you had good reasons to make choice A in one run of the situation, why would you ever want to make choice B in another run? Since everything is exactly the same, you always prefer the same alternative. The only way I can see if getting out of this is to add true random chance to your decision process (quantum mechanics might provide this) - but how could adding random noise to your decision ever make you more free? To me, it just seems to make you less free.
It doesn't make sense to me, which is exactly why I cannot see free will coexisting along determinism. If a person would always chose the same option under the same circumstances then there aren't any actual choices since there is only a single possible path. It would just be the illusion of choices.
And if you were to add randomness to the process, would the decision even belong to you? Or would it just be an accident of the universe?
I wanted to say what I'm about to say in response to an earlier comment, but it doesn't really matter where I say it. Basically what it comes down to is, like the other person has said, the outcome of 'decisions' and 'choices' occur based on the calculated processes of all the neurons and molecules and atoms of our brains and such. In that way it is determined, but that doesn't mean predictable like they said before. The reason the debate even exists and is so difficult to conceptualize is that all our memories and past experiences factor into the thought processes that make up our consciousness. Everybody has such an unbelievable amount of factors influencing what goes into determining the outcomes that literally every single person on earth will come to a decision based on unique reasoning. We make hundreds or even thousands of choices every day, and all these factor into this determining process. So that's how determinism and free will can coexist, yeah things are determined but this determination process is so unique it will result in unique outcomes for everyone to the point where if everyone is so different in the sum of all their decisions, opinions, and reasonings, it could be called free will.
I'm still making choices, even if they're determined. My choices are part of the mechanism through which the universe plays out, but they could not come about by any means than me actively weighing my options and picking the one I prefer most.
When I first started thinking about this issue, I thought your view was obviously correct. Then I read, and thought, a fair bit on compatibilism. I found it confusing and hard to grasp initially, but now it seems like the obvious truth on this matter. That's not at all to say that you're wrong and I'm right, or that you will change your view - it's only to encourage you to spend some more time with this question, because you just might end up changing your mind. And compatibilism, as a bonus, is a much more comfortable position to take psychologically.
It's comforting to consider that, even if everything is determined and you have no control over your actions, you're still a cog in the machine. You have a script but you're still the actor. Your actions will have their butterfly effects and contribute to the march of time.
However, while a choice with a determined outcome is technically still a choice, the control you have over that choice is an illusion. You're exerting your will, but your will is not free, because even it is being controlled.
So while I agree choices and will exist, suggesting they're compatible with determinism is just splitting hairs, because free will is the point of discussion, and it is not free.
It depends on what you mean by "free", if you mean free from the physical laws of the universe, no, we are physical beings in the universe, we are the universe. If you mean free as a quantification to the degree that you can act independently from the immediate whims of the will of others, that exists on a spectrum that is determined by an infinitely complex matrix of action, intent, and the result of actions made with intent.
Ironically, if there were any deities that would actually make us less free, to the degree that that deity knows the consequences of their actions. If we lived in a universe with an omnipotent deity, free will, by any reasonable definition, would be impossible, because that deity could not help but act with conscious intent, because it would know the consequences of all of its actions and it would be capable of causing any consequence that is logically conceivable to be committed. I don't even know what it would mean to say that anything could exist that has free will, because the only reference we have for the nature of all things is our current universe which is both random and determinable. For you and your choices to be the result of anything that is either or both random and determinable is to not be free. And even if souls do exist, it is impossible to even conceive of them as being made up of properties that are neither random nor determined.
So not only is free will only able to accurately describe a very limited quality. But the religious conception of the reality of the universe, according to many people, if true, rather than allowing for free will, would actually make impossible even that very limited quality of the universe that can reasonably be called free will, because then all of our actions would be the inevitable and precise result of very precise intent, rather than being free from any intent at all, and merely the result of unintended chaos.
Technically, no. It's fairly well established that any decision you make has already been subconsciously made and neurons firing before you are consciously aware of your choice.
One could then further argue that the atoms that make up everything were put together in such a way that your choice has been predetermined since the big bang.
That's a fun thought experiment...
But, on a practical level, we must behave as though you are still responsible for your actions or else society would fall apart.
Nope - the illusion of free will stems from everyone having a different set of knowledge, information, and experiences that influence their future decisions in different ways. The reality is, in unknown situations where there is low-information and past experience, we will all react generally the same way like our evolutionary ancestors programmed us to.
Example: If you went to a crowded library where people are accustomed to dead silence, and suddenly fired off a gun, everyone in the library would turn and react the same way - none of them had any expectation, information, or experience with the situation and thus react with the naked human response - - not one person's "free will" in that situation will allow them to just ignore the loud and sudden sound.
This actually comes off to me like a strong case for free will, which is odd... you say that knowledge, experience, and information can result in different reactions. While I get what you're trying to say about certain "evolutionary reactions" (like a gunshot being fired), 99% of my daily reactions probably wouldn't elicit a fight or flight response.
I actually like that you sort of supported the case that maybe free will is actually just having a larger awareness of consequences for said actions - so while one may argue it's not necessarily a "conscious choice," it is certainly another pathway that your body may have adapted to (i.e., "chose" due to new information).
Well it's just that we are very stimuli-driven creatures...everything is still reaction to stimuli and different reactions just come from personal history, all the while still chasing the same needs and desires as any other creature and our brain pathways, including those for reward (such as for conditioning, addiction), all work in predictable, almost mechanical ways. In the same way, two squirrels may hide nuts in different places based on past success, but I wouldn't call that free will.
I believe in determinism, but note in a fate that's bestowed on you necessarily.
It would be more that I believe in the fact that you can't help the decisions you make because there are so many preceding variables that factor into them that it would be impossible in any given circumstance for things to go another way.
That's what a rational justice system whose sole purpose is prevention of crime would strategically come to.
If you punish murder harder than attempted murder then your goal isn't to reduce murder but to provide satisfaction for the people after the fact that someone has been punished for the death which is another thing you can talk about I guess.
No, attempted murder is punished less severely so that the person in question has reason to not finish the job if they fuck up a kill. If the charge is the same, you better not let your victim get away.
No that's not what attempted murder isโintent to kill is an element of the crime of attempted murder.
If you didn't try to finish the job it's not attempted murder but possibly aggrevated assault; for it to be attempted murder you must have had the intend to murder someone; the only thing that saved the other person was someone else stopping you, luck, or your own incompetence.
If you purposefully not finish the job by whatever means it's not attempted murder and the defence can use that as evidence that there was no intent to kill but only to wound or to cause pain or whatever.
For first degree attempted murder, yes, and it carries a maximum term of life in prison, the same as a standard charge for first degree murder. However, failing to finish the job does not drop the charge down to aggrevated assault if the intent was present at any point, which using a gun frequently satisfies, or even planning it out and purchasing the materials. Anyway, the crime is lessened for a myriad of reasons, but a large one is deterrence from taking further action when things get out of the killer's hands.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:00:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the entire point of the justice system is to stop people from doing bad things. therefore it doesn't really matter whether we criminalize attempted murder as less than murder so long as they're sufficiently criminalized so that people don't do them.
The problem is that people who attempted a murder but failed are just as much a danger to society as those who succeeded through something as simple as the bullet missing through a blow of the wind or being stopped by someone at the last moment.
But the last group gets let into society more quickly and with less extensive rehabilitationโseems like a dangerous situation to me.
If the purpose of the law is to reduce the number of murders then punishing attempted murders differently from successful ones neither has a deterring nor rehabilitative effect.
In the end people who attempt murder require the same amount of deterrents and rehabilitation to stop murders.
No "results oriented thinking" is just an idiom; it doesn't mean that.
It just means that you judge an action which has elements of chance in it based on the outcome of the action rather than the action itself while the outcome is heavily influenced by chance.
It's a common trapping in poker for people to fall for that for instance where it can often happen that the best play will still lead to a loss and a good poker player realizes that even though the play led to a big loss it was the best course of action all the same with the incomplete information and elements of chance available.
ethically, sure... but at what point are you guilty ethically? how far into the attempt do you ahve to get? if the attempted murder is taking a gun to someone's house with intent to kill, only to realize they're not home, and then realize what you're doing is awful and you go home and vow never to do that again... is that different than taking the shot and missing and then realizing the error of your ways... is that different from taking the shot, missing, taking a few more shots, missing them all, and then getting in close with a rope, and getting it around their neck until they start kicking... realizing Then your error, and backing off at that point...
Both are equally terrible from my perspective. Both decided to endanger the lives of others with their own stupidity and selfishness. The only difference, in my view, is that A is guilty of attempted murder, while B is guilty of murder.
Well, take the opposite approach. Say there are two lifeguards, C and D. One day, while he's on his shift, C spots a child drowning in the ocean, dives in and saves him -- at great risk to himself. That child is the son of the mayor, and the mayor goes all out with his gratitude, rewarding C with lavish gifts and paying off his student loans. All of a sudden, C is getting untold wealth and adulation.
Can D make a case that he deserves the same treatment, despite the fact that he didn't save the child or take the risk? After all, he would have -- no one doubts D's bravery, or his devotion to the job. The only thing that stopped him was that he wasn't on shift that day; in fact, he wasn't anywhere near the beach, and was completely unaware of the child drowning.
The question is this: is it fair that C gets the financial reward and D gets nothing? Instinctively, it seems obvious that the answer is yes -- but what's the difference between this and the drink driving question up there? In both cases, the only difference is timing. If A and B are equally bad, do we judge 'moral badness' by its worst case scenario? If C and D are equally good, is it ever fair to reward an individual for anything that includes an element of pure chance?
I don't think there's a 'correct' answer; if I did, it probably wouldn't mess with my head so much. As yet, though, I haven't figured out quite what the rule is.
The second example isn't quite the same though. Because in the first, both individuals made a decision and took an action. But in your lifeguard example, only one takes action. The other, while prepared to, doesn't take any action (or doesn't have the opportunity). Intention is often irrelevant. Intentions are internal to each person, but actions are quantifiable.
What you're really talking about is more akin to winning a lottery. Everything in life is subject to random chance. Some people are given opportunities that someone else, with identical qualifications, might be denied through circumstance alone.
Intention is often irrelevant. Intentions are internal to each person, but actions are quantifiable.
And there is the point. Neither A nor B intended to kill anyone. If A had called a taxi instead, and the taxi driver had turned up drunk (unknown to A) and killed the child, would A be morally liable? After all, had he not been drinking, he wouldn't have called the taxi in the first place. His intention was pure, but he was still directly responsible in a cosmic sense; the driver wouldn't have been there had A not made the 'right' decision. The end result -- the dead child -- is the same, but we wouldn't hold A liable (nor, I would argue, should we).
Look at it another way. If intentions don't matter but actions do, is it the same to kill someone accidentally as it is to do it on purpose? If I lean over my balcony and accidentally dislodge a flowerpot so it crashes to the ground, I intend to do no harm. I would comfortably say that doing it by accident is morally 'better' than doing it on purpose and aiming for that sweet old lady walking down the street four storeys down. Either way, Doris is going to wind up a smear on the pavement -- but one way, I would say, my moral culpability is lessened.
EDIT: Actually, there's an even easier solution. Let's say that there are two drowning children. One is the son of the mayor, and the other is an orphan. Both lifeguards take the same risk, but by chance -- they have no way of knowing which will lead to the financial reward -- they say one will save one child and the other will save the other. Both have the same intentions and both take the same actions. Is D justified in asking for half of the financial reward?
This is like saying two identically ethical people are placed in two different countries. One is shot. Does the other deserve to be shot?
No, of course not, because ethics alone do not actually cause or deserve anything to happen - the universe does not care, and so the consequences of these happenings should not be pinned on the ethics of recipients.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:55:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Take a religious line, then. Imagine St. Peter, tallying souls into heaven. When you're counting off the entry qualifications, do C and D get the same 'points'?
It's not difficult to imagine a situation where there is a moral reward.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
OK then, look at it this way. What if C and D were both off shift that day, and a third lifeguard -- E -- wasn't as good at swimming and couldn't save the child? In this case, the child dies. Do C and D get the same points as they would if the child died? (After all, they both have the intent to save the child; they just lack the opportunity.) Does E get the same points as they do if they succeed even if he tries and fails? Would they all get fewer points than if the child dies than they saved the child? Is intent more important than action -- and if it is, why do A and B get the same punishment from St. Peter?
The goal (at least, as I see it) isn't to determine an absolute or a relative morality, but a consistent morality. It's absolutely fine to say 'Everyone gets the same points; pack it up, let's go home'. The problem is when you have to apply that same logical ruleset to different scenarios -- like lifeguard E failing to save the kid. That's why people have been debating this shit for thousands of years.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:27:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It seems really irrelevant to judge them based on something they did not do, think, or even were aware of.
But that's exactly what you're doing: you're judging D as 'good' (or at least, as good as C) because of something he didn't actually do, just because he would have done it if he'd had the opportunity. 'If he'd had the opportunity' is the key phrase there. Can you be 'morally good' without actions? What would that even mean?
When you apply any sort of relative scale to it, it becomes a bit of a minefield -- but as soon as you define one person as 'better' than another (and you can definitely do that; a person who is able to and chooses not to save the child must, by any rational morality, be 'less good' than someone who is able to and successfully saves the drowning child), you have to consider how that morality scales.
Intentions are internal to each person, but actions are quantifiable.
Deontologists disagree! The two ways of thinking are two of the main schools of thought in ethics, and they are still trying to figure out which one is right...
There is a correct answer: What actually happened? Philosophers always seem to forget that theory models reality, but reality does not model theory. What actually happens is more important than what COULD or WOULD happen. It is good to recognize what could or would happen as it potentially gives you more control over reality, but in the end, it is only reality that matters.
I disagree. We are capable of figuring out general rules, and determining what we call 'fairness' by deciding where the line in the sand would be. To do that, we need that hypothetical theory. Once you've got something that 'actually happened', you still have to decide how to deal with that -- ideally in a way that's consistent with the principles of the society you live in (or what you want that society to look like.)
Fairness is subjective just as value is subjective. You are essentially repeating part of what I said. Re:
It is good to recognize what could or would happen as it potentially gives you more control over reality...
But ultimately, only reality is rewarded. Hillary Clinton and the mass media KNEW she would win the presidency. Reality spoke up and Trump is president. Would have, could have, should have, doesn't matter when it comes time to ask who is the current president.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:53:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
but what's the difference between this and the drink driving question up there?
I would say that these two questions are fundamentally different, because one is concerned with ethics and morality, while the other is concerned with fairness, which is a separate thing from morality.
Because the lifeguard question is not a question of morality, intent is irrelevant, in the cases of both lifeguards. The mayor is not rewarding Lifeguard C's intent, he is rewarding the outcome. Suppose that the boy had drowned despite Lifeguard C's best efforts. The mayor might still be grateful for the lifeguard's actions, but he would not be heaping lavish gifts on him.
As for fairness, what exactly are you asking? Are you asking if the mayor is being unfair, or are you asking if there is some sort of cosmic unfairness at play here? For me, the answer would be no either way. It's unlucky, but that's not the same thing as unfair.
Now, as to the drunk driving question.
The justice system weighs both intent and action/outcome when sentencing a crime. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. I think I would place far more weight on intent than I would on outcome.
If a man tries to murder his wife and the only reason he is not successful is because he missed all her vital organs, despite shooting her five times? I think intent should be the primary consideration there, and I think his sentence should be the same as if he had succeeded in killing her.
So is it unfair that Drunk Driver A gets charged with a DUI, gets some points on his license and no jailtime; while Drunk Driver B gets charged with manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years in prison?
I don't know that fairness is the word I would use, but I would say that the disparity is unjust. I think the punishments for drunk driving need to be far more severe than what they currently are. Perhaps they should scale with just how drunk you are.
The boy did not die because the driver was ethically wrong, he died because the car physically collided with him. Actions merit consequences, not the ethical motivations driving these actions. Ethically, the divers are of course the same if they would act the same way - but our motivations are never the reason things happen, actions are, and if your perfect ethics never cause material actions to create negative/positive consequences then really no one really cares - in this case, it would be the mayor that didn't care.
I see what you're getting at, but the whole point of the thought experiment is that A didn't intend any harm. Therefore, they can't be guilty of attempted murder.
Also, legally speaking, murder and attempted murder require a specific intent to kill. So A isn't guilty of attempted murder legally or ethically.
In my personal opinion they would should be charged with differently labeled things, A would get charged with something like potential murder, and be B would be charged with accidental murder.
Not sure people wouldn't consider A a bad person. If you drive home intoxicated whether or not anything happened you're still an asshole. If something does happen just reinforces that they're an asshole. Doesn't mean A is any less of a dick.
I feel as though they'd both be equally as unethical. The difference is that one person seen the consequences of their unethical decision and the other got away free.
Putting this into a different- though more extreme -context, I'd imagine A and B both being rapists. Both of these people have made the same decision to rape and have both escaped. The woman that A raped however, turned to suicide from the event. I don't think that that would make B any less of an awful person than A.
I feel like that's an easy answer? They're both awful for willingly disregarding any potential person on the road so they could drive drunk. Why does one need to be worse, they're both just awful
Why does one need to be worse, they're both just awful
I think that's sidestepping the issue a little bit. The point is, we do tend to see one of them -- B -- as being worse. The question is why that is. Are the scenarios equivalently moral? If so, should we go easier on B, because it was 'bad luck' that made a child step into the road at that particular instance? Or should we be harder on A, because it was only fortune that stopped him being a murderer too? If that's the case, do we have a responsibility to judge all moral decisions by their worst-case-scenario outcome, even if things went well?
Yeah but wasn't the point of the video to make a distinction between types of luck and responsibility; moral and casual responsibility? We shouldn't go easier on B because it was "bad luck" because the reason behind him killing the child is because he was drunk driving which was his moral responsibility not to do.
Now the argument for whether or not the justice system should judge and penalize someone based on worst-case ontario is a different story.
The point is, we do tend to see one of them -- B -- as being worse. The question is why that is.
Because something that is real happened. A child was run over. For person 'A', they are still a bad person for creating an environment where something bad is likely to occur, but since nothing bad actually resulted, judgement is saved for another day.
You're conflating morals with outcomes in the justice system.
I don't tend to see each person as worse. Nobody really does. But we treat them different with different legal outcomes for a whole host of reasons that have little to do with morality.
Justice isn't exclusively morality. It is about outcomes. If I negligently toss a lit matchstick to the ground and it lands on your cotton ball, I owe you $.05. If I negligently throw a matchstick to the ground (same mens rea as before) and it lands in your gas can and burns down your house, I owe you thousands and thousands of dollars. Same action and intent on the actor's part, but different outcomes and thus different legal remedies.
Criminal justice works the same way. The "punishment" has to do with the victim in no small part. Thus, the reason we have sentencing hearings and victim input at that stage. If there is no victim then the punishment obviously differs. None of that has to do with the morality of the action that has already been deemed illegal.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:47:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't necessarily have a solution, but I just wanted to chime in and say this is kind of mind-numbing stuff to think about.
The easiest way for me to look at it is to just come to the conclusion that neither people who drove drunk are bad people, they just made bad decisions and one will have to pay for it while the other won't. Life isn't always fair.
I disagree. Take your lit match, for example. The question is, 'Does the morality of an action change depending the outcomes of it?'
That's an important philosophical question, and one that the justice system absolutely should be concerned with -- but it's very much linked with the morality of the action.
To be honest, I see them both as equally bad. Just because one's actions resulted as expected and the other didn't is irrelevant in me deciding that neither should have done what they did. The reason society looks worse on B is because his case is the one heard about while A isn't covered by the news.
The point is, we do tend to see one of them -- B -- as being worse.
You're just claiming something. I don't see B as worse, I see them as equally shitty. Person B just by chance had to deal with the consequences of their shit decision.
But I don't think B is worse, I think they're just as bad as every A that chose to drove drunk and just so happened to not kill anyone.
Collectively, I would say that most people would say that B is worse -- B would certainly get the higher punishment; after all, A is getting off scot free. But saying they're both equally bad is a valid philosophical position. It just leads to some weird conclusions, if you follow the line down.
Let's take a different approach. Say there are two lifeguards, C and D. One day, while he's on his shift, C spots a child drowning in the ocean, dives in and saves him -- at great risk to himself. That child is the son of the mayor, and the mayor goes all out with his gratitude, rewarding C with lavish gifts and paying off his student loans. All of a sudden, C is getting untold wealth and adulation.
Can D make a case that he deserves the same treatment, despite the fact that he didn't save the child or take the risk? After all, he would have -- no one doubts D's bravery, or his devotion to the job. The only thing that stopped him was that he wasn't on shift that day; in fact, he wasn't anywhere near the beach, and was completely unaware of the child drowning.
The question is this: is it fair that C gets the financial reward and D gets nothing? Instinctively, it seems obvious that the answer is yes -- but what's the difference between this and the drink driving question up there? In both cases, the only difference is timing. If A and B are equally bad, do we judge 'moral badness' by its worst case scenario? If C and D are equally good, is it ever fair to disproportionately reward an individual for anything that includes an element of pure chance? And if you say yes to that, is it ever fair to disproportionately punish an individual for something that includes an element of pure chance too?
Okay, let me propose this solution. In real life, people donโt usually have the exact same circumstances minus one variable. Usually there are multiple variables.
Anyway, for the drunk driving example letโs say we enact a new law to more precisely determine the punishment. Streets will be given a risk rating based on their overall safety as well as their busyness at certain times of the day. So therefore when you go drunk driving in the morning on an empty country road, you will receive a lighter penalty than if you went driving in a crowded city street in the middle of rushhour. Hereโs the thing, it doesnโt matter if you end up crashing or not. The punishment will be the same regardless. Therefore, there will be no factor of moral luck and A and B will be treated equally.
Problem with a system like that is that computing such risks is tremendously difficult, but just because itโs difficult doesnโt mean it isnโt the right course of action.
Also in the mayor example, it is unfair that the lifeguard is being heavily rewarded, heโs just doing his job.
kalekar ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:47:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is not fair. In an ideal world, the mayor would understand that any lifeguard would do the same thing in that situation and reward all lifeguards as a whole.
In an ideal world, A and B would get the same punishment because they both recklessly endangered the lives of others. If we treated every DUI as manslaughter, I'm sure we would have far less occurrences.
Let's say that teachers E and F both leave loaded guns in their desks, and a student of E finds it and shoots someone. Even though nothing happened in F's class, we would still punish them.
In the ideal world, we would judge a person's actions by all possible outcomes it could create, not the actual one. It's difficult however to do that, and I would say that human elements of compassion, how we perceive justice, and the need to attach consequences to an individual's actions are what creates these unequal outcomes.
damn dude, i did not expect to have to think this hard today.
ltyboy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:01:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think in this new analogy you could make the case that neither deserve it, as for C to receive such special treatment for just doing his job doesn't make sense. Those lifeguards are getting paid to risk their life, that's what they are expected to do. Now, if C was just some guy walking down a beach who was a strong swimmer but wasn't employed as a lifeguard and did the same thing, he does deserve special recognition. Most people would not risk their lives as he did, so he deserves a special reward in this instance.
But does he deserve more recognition than an equivalent person, D, who would have jumped in to save the boy but stopped to tie his shoelace and got there two minutes later?
In this case, we'd argue that the action makes a big difference -- of course C should be rewarded and D not; D didn't actually save the kid, after all -- but why is that different to the case of A and B, where we often view them as equally bad but B's actions have a much worse consequence on the world?
ltyboy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:24:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well in the case of A and B, they both actually did the action, and therefore I don't think they are morally and worse or better. But the justice system can't punish on morality alone. There are a lot of shitty people who do shitty things that go unnoticed-if we were to punish every one of them the jails would be completely full with tons leftover.
That "just claiming something" is an important thing to be able to do. Being able to intuiting a majority moral stance is key to getting at the interesting parts of an apparent contradiction posed by a thought experiment. It's fine that you have an opinion already formed, but the fact of the matter is that we treat people differently based on moral luck. Both casually in our general opinions of them and in the legal system we have created that is based, largely, on our shared cultural values. There's a reason DUIs are misdemeanors and involuntary manslaughter is generally treated as a felony.
So if person A got pulled over on the way home, do you think that A and B should get the same punishment? They are equally shitty people that have made the exact same set of decisions.
This was something we discussed in law school. In just about any legal system, the person who killed the child would be in much more trouble then the person who just drove drunk. So there are practical implications for how we feel about it, and we've clearly made a decision.
I think most people around me would believe that the action of the person is terrible no matter the outcome as long as that terrible outcome is one to be reasonably expected according to data and intuition or deduction. I think that belief is shown in America's drunk driving laws.
According to laws here in Brazil, they both intended harm when they decided to drink and drive.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:08:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It wasnโt out of their hands though. They couldโve just not drank. The choice is there.
It doesnโt matter if other people get lucky and donโt end up with any accidents. B made the choice out of their own free will to take the risk and chance for the likelihood of that to happen. Itโs about self responsibility.
Itโs kind of like when you make the choice to gamble and lose a shit ton of money and other people will spend the same amount of money and win more. Youโre the one who made the choice to accept the probability. If you donโt want to lose, donโt gamble. You already know beforehand that you could end up with the worse case scenario. If you donโt want that, then donโt put yourself in a situation to be playing the โmoral luckโ roulette.
dsds548 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:08:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well here's the rational thought about luck. Luck is always at play in life. No matter what you do, it will affect the outcome. Whether it's a job interview and there's traffic and you are late to the interview etc. Luck is an essential part of life. Something that cannot be controlled and is accept by most as part of life.
Let's go back to the drivers A and B. Yes it seems unfair that Driver B gets punished much more severe than driver A. Yet they both decided to take that risk/gamble. Fortunately for Driver A, he rolled a good roll whereas driver B was not so lucky.
You can pretty much say that, if you drive while drunk, your punishment will be in the range of not getting caught at all, to getting a drunk driving ticket, to getting a manslaughter charge. So it's your gamble to drive drunk. Bad luck sucks, but you knew the consequences when you made the decision.
I think about this a lot. Itโs kinda weird, my dad almost hit a guy once while I was in the car with him while he wasnโt paying attention. Thank god nothing happened, but the timing always scared me, like what if we left a few minutes earlier? Would we have even encountered him?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:09:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Both of them are equally morally wrong - but the degree to which both of them deserves punishment is different.
This is because punishment is only partially based on moral wrongness- the other half of it is outcome/severity of the results.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:54:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They're both just as bad as each other. Don't drink and drive.
WM_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:45:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is what I think pretty much every time I start driving. If I get killed in traffic might not happen if I'd have left one moment earlier or later.
An extension of this is the implications of there being no libertarian free will. If we exist in a universe in which all occurrence is the result of physical laws, which it seems to be, then all things that happen or don't happen involving people are based entirely on moral luck. If you are born a phychopath, then you are merely the unlucky result of brain chemistry that causes you to display psychopathic tendency. If you are born a very empathetic person, you are merely the lucky result of brain chemistry that causes you to display agreeable tendencies.
I am a consequentialist. I would actually say that it is ridiculous to conclude, in a philosophically precise manor, that any person is intrinsically evil. The only things that are intrinsically evil are consequences, and everything that necessitates those consequences is extrinsically evil. In order to reduce bad consiquences, it is probably necessary to punish people who both do things that result in bad consiquences or severely increase the likelihood of resulting in bad consiquences. Punishments should accomplish 1 or more of the following to be justified: Incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and should accomplish them to a degree that more harm is spared than caused by the act of punishment. I suspect that such punishments do not fulfil our thirst for vengeance in many of these cases, but I think that society must take a general social responsibility to get over our thirst for vengeance. The one that causes us to want to hurt people more than is useful for society, just so that we can feel satisfied with their suffering. This is a very toxic form of sadism that, like all forms of sadism, needs to be quelled and not entertained, unless all parties involved agree to it, both the punisher and the punished.
Stayed sober and accidentally drove into and killed a child
Got drunk and drove around
Got drunk and accidentally drove into and killed a child.
The best and the worst people are fairly apparent here. 1 made the best choices and had the best outcome, while 4 made the worst choices and had the worst outcome. The grey zone is with person 2 and person 3. The former made the best choices, but had the worst outcome, while the latter made the worst choices, but had the best outcome.
Let's say each person can be given 0-10 years in prison. How do we decide how much time each person gets?
Let's say that person 1 gets "a" years, and person 4 gets "b" years. How much time do we give to person 2 and person 3? Should they each have "0.5*b" years because they both had 1/2 of possible things go wrong? Should person 3 have more or less time than person 2?
Say that you're the final decider in this. What makes you so certain in your decisions?
Well, imo that's why natural is so important and human laws are so ineffective.
In a world that is unpredictable, constantly changing and is arguably acting on its own principles we have laws that are inflexible, predictable, narrow and, often, like in the example above, seemingly unjust.
I believe that the world balances itself out and that common sense Should play a greater role in law, rather than sticking to inflexible, unnatural rules.
With that said, I don't pretend that people cant be held accountable for their actions by others.
I'm just not sure our system best represents what life is and our place in it.
Isn't this what the movie Crash was about? At least that's what I remember and I watched it in high school and our fucked me up. Less and the morality, but just the 'if I left just 5 minutes earlier this crash woulda been me'
I'm a consequentialist, so I resolve that by making a distinction between good/bad and praise/blameworthy. A is the only one who did something bad (something with negative consequences), but both A and B behaved in a blameworthy (something likely to have negative consequences) fashion.
It's also useful for odd cases, like saving the life of a drowning boy who goes on a killing spree later that day. Saving a drowning boy is always praiseworthy, but in that particular case doing so was a morally wrong thing (albeit one the rescuer could never have anticipated.)
Technically, yes. But having an affair is always blameworthy (and thus not recommended) because of the emotional fallout if you do get discovered.
It's sort of like the old thought experiment about all your friends and family being paid actors who are pretending to like you. That's terrible in theory, but if you never find out then you just live a pleasant life surrounded by people who "love" you - indistinguishable from the real thing. I don't think it would actually be possible to keep such a secret forever, but if you somehow did then because the "victim" didn't suffer, the consequences were good so the action was good (so long as the actors weren't wracked by enough guilt to turn things around into a net negative, of course.)
Is it not rather unfair to base your moral judgements (good/bad, "morally wrong" lifesaving) on things that are outside the control of the person that you're judging rather than on their decisions based on possible/likely outcomes of their actions?
A person having an affair likes to believe that their partner won't find out, but I think it's very rare that that goes undiscovered permanently, and any existing problems in a relationship are likely to be exacerbated by them investing their time and energy on a third party. Anyway, my point is that "what they don't know won't hurt them" is self-deception and that their actions will bring about the end of the existing relationship in a deceitful betrayal rather than either working at being better for each other or an honest and open parting of the ways.
You clearly used the words "good/bad" and "morally wrong" for consequences (which fits with your description as a consequentialist) but what level of moral value do you attach to the probable/possible outcomes of an action ("blameworthy/praiseworthy")?
In your world view is there nothing inherently bad about deception?
In your world view is there nothing inherently bad about deception?
The only thing that is inherently bad is suffering. Deception acquires "bad-ness" in proportion to the suffering that it causes. Lying to save someone's life isn't (usually) bad, lying to spare someone's feelings isn't (usually) bad, etc.
A person having an affair likes to believe that their partner won't find out, but I think it's very rare that that goes undiscovered permanently [...]
I'm curious about that. It's not a primary source, but a small amount of digging turned up this article which claims that 83% of male cheaters, and 95% of female cheaters report getting away with their affairs - while this article says that 30% of women and 46% of men knew about their partner's infidelity. So it seems like in the majority of cases cheaters do get away with it.
I do agree with the broad stroke of your points though - I don't think cheating is healthy for a relationship, I think it's reasonably likely to result in a bad outcome (i.e. it's blameworthy), and I think people are better served being open and honest and openly leaving if that's what's best for that relationship.
what level of moral value do you attach to the probable/possible outcomes of an action ("blameworthy/praiseworthy")?
I think knowing which actions are blame/praiseworthy is a useful heuristic for choosing an action when you don't have time to do a deep analysis of all the possible outcomes of your action. We obviously can't know everything, so knowing the general tendencies of actions is the best we can do sometimes.
I'm afraid I doubt your statistics, particularly the very high ones for non-detection which are sourced from a website offering services to help people cheat. Not only do I doubt their motives and their statistical methods but I doubt that they have access to a representative sample of cheaters who have been cheating more than a small amount of time, since only people starting out on cheating would use their website. People who've been having an affair for some time wouldn't need it any more. Couple that with my assertion that you're likely to get found out in the end, not that you get found out particularly soon, and you find that these disreputable stats don't do a lot of counterargument.
Anyway, you didn't answer my question about the level of moral value. "useful heuristic" isn't a moral value, it's a pragmatic value.
I'll try again: Are distinctions between possible/probable outcomes more important, equally important or less important than actual consequences in determining the morality of a given choice, in your view?
To put it in a context: Who was morally worse: the person who drove at 60mph in a residential street mid-afternoon in school holidays and didn't cause any damage, or the person who drove down the street at 25mph three minutes later whose nearside wheel broke a child's leg that ran out immediately in front of them?
That's very interesting because I've had this principle in my mind before and couldn't explain to others what I was trying to say. Basically the result of something doesn't necessarily determine right or wrong. They're both equally wrong in my opinion and the death is a tragedy and B is guilty but that doesn't make him worse than A by any means because his intent wasn't to kill a kid.
The problem comes when you flip it around, and start to look at when people do good things as a result of being in the right place at the right time (which is just another example of moral luck).
I think in both cases the punishment or adoration should only be for one of the two. But only because that's the only practical way to enforce it (I know that's kind of going against the whole philosophy premise but still). I feel A and B are both equally wrong and C and D are both equally brave. My issue with the C and D scenario is that we're asking why shouldn't D get the adoration of C, but in the A and B scenario we weren't asking whether B should be punished the same as A but whether A is ethically wrong as well, which are two very different arguments. Hopefully that kind of made sense.
Well of course, there are different favors to determine how the alcohol affects each person. HOWEVER, assuming that A and B are EXACTLY the same, they are both equal. The only difference is how the world views B as a โbadโ person, consequently making them view A as a โgoodโ person, as they are blind to Aโs similar actions.
This is why attempted murder should carry the same punishment as murder. I mean how does it change the act if the victim either does or doesnโt die in the hospital? The same act occurred. How can what happens in a different place change the gravity of the original act?
Societies of humans (and other animals supposedly) create ways to compensate losses or damages to the society as a whole. Sometimes the ways to cope are very twisted and unjust, but it all comes down to allowing all to forget.
Ehh, itโs kinda like a risk thing. You drive drunk but donโt kill a kid, youโre a piece of shit anyway and get told โyou could have killed a kid and ruined your life.โ You drive drunk and DO kill the kid, well.. you killed the kid and ruined your life. Both are shitty but the one who kills the kid gets in more trouble because it finally happened, which makes sense to me.
You canโt punish everyone equally when one of the punishments is for killing a kid.
To answer the question directly, neither are ethically worse. Both are shitty but the one who killed the kid just took the risk and fucked himself over.
Let's say it's a boxing match. Two boxers, W and X, get paired up with two other boxers, Y and Z, for a friendly training match. They're otherwise identical, but Z has an undiagnosed brain aneurysm that's just waiting to pop. He would have been fine, if he'd been working a nice office job, but as a boxer prone to getting punched in the head it's an accident waiting to happen. X throws his first punch, and down Z goes, dead. Sorry, kids... Daddy isn't coming home from the gym today.
So now you have three questions: 1) Should X feel morally culpable? On the one hand, he didn't know Z had a medical condition, and even if he did, he didn't choose to be placed with him; besides which, Z was a professional and knew the risks. On the other, X threw the punch that killed another human being; no one forced him to do it, and if he had decided not to do it -- not to engage in a risky activity, just like driving drunk -- then Z would still be alive. Is he in any way responsible for Z's death? Even just a little bit? And, if you take the line that X bears any responsibility, 2) Is W just as morally culpable? After all, it was only by the luck of the draw that he wasn't the one throwing the punch. He would have done the exact same thing and burst the exact same aneurysm, except for the fact that he wasn't the one fighting Z; he punched his own sparring partner, Y, just as hard, but with no medical condition Y was fine (if a little groggy afterwards). Most people seem pretty happy to take the line that Drunk Driver A is just as culpable as Drunk Driver B, so is there a difference in this case? And finally, if you say that W is just as morally culpable as X, 3) Are all boxers morally culpable for Z's death? After all, they hit Z just as much as W did -- and would have hit just as much as X did, had they been in the ring with him. Are they 'responsible'? Are you as responsible if you were the next boxer up on the docket, but weren't actually in the ring? What if you were the next boxer Z was due to fight? What if you were in the same gym, but had never met Z (but could, in theory, have found yourself sparring with him one week, if you decided to visit on a Tuesday rather than a Friday)? Can the fact that you boxed in college thirty years ago make you partially responsible for the death of a man halfway around the world? We're getting to what I hope would be a bit ridiculous now... but where's the line?
Why would any of them be responsible at all? It was an accident and was not breaking the law or putting anyone in any danger. Drinking and driving is something something having no regard for others lives. Boxing is a normal thing that they all agreed to and were not recklessly putting others in harms way.
Nobody would be responsible in this situation, just a shitty thing that happened. Thatโs like inviting your friend over to dinner him having a heart attack after a very unhealthy meal.
Letโs use another example. What if you got really mad at someone and beat their ass on the steet. They fall and hit their head and die. You are responsible for this because you recklessly put their life in danger and took the risk of him dying, which makes this manslaughter. If you beat his ass but didnโt kill him, itโs just assault, which is less of a charge. In this case, you too the risk of killing him but didnโt kill him. Youโre still just as much of an asshole for assaulting someone in the street.
After watching the video, it seems clear to me that we should then blame a drunk driver who gets lucky as if he committed the most offending act as a result of driving drunk. So, all drunk drivers should be blamed as though they killed someone regardless of whether they did or not. It goes against what my intuition tells me, but I honestly believe that's the most fair.
You're suggesting that what a person intends to do and what a person actually does should hold equal weight. I didn't pick the winning numbers for the lottery, but I intended to, so the lottery commission should just give me the jackpot, right?
I don't think this one is any question at all. They've both made horrible decisions and are equally as guilty for breaking the law and putting other people in potential danger; however, B just became a statistic to add to those who've killed while drink driving. A, on the other hand, is just as guilty for driving drunk, but this time he got lucky. Next time, if there is a next time, he could be not so much. The difference is that B did, in fact, kill someone as a result of the same decision A made. A should feel just as guilty for putting a potentially deadly situation out on the road, despite not having hit anyone.
Everybody who chooses to be a boxer and gets anywhere with it is making a choice to take the risks involved in order to achieve their goals. You're not morally culpable for hurting a person in a mutual agreement that ordinarily leads to significantly less death. If X knew Z had an aneurysm waiting to happen he'd probably have massive doubts.
Once autopsy confirms that Z died of an aneurysm, which no one could have known about, I would readily say no one is at fault. It was an accident. If I were in X's shoes, I would doubtlessly feel guilty about it, but as a third party I wouldn't blame X in the slightest.
To me, the drunk driver question is a much trickier moral conundrum.
In this case I think the best option is to use Kant's imperative. Is it wrong if everyone drunk and drove, regardless of killing someone? Is it wrong if everyone pursued proffessional boxing, regardless of killing someone.
I think most people would agree that drinking and driving is morally wrong but pursuing boxing is not. So driver A would be morally wrong while boxer W would not. In the same way boxer X cannot be held accountable for bad luck and driver B can.
There's also the issue of whether you could have prevented it without knowing of it in advance. Boxer X most likely adhered to all safety procedures related to boxing while driver B clearly did not adhere to all safety procedures of driving. Therefore driver B intentionally did something that increased the chances of something going wrong, which makes him accountable.
Your questions are really well written up but to me the answers are pretty obvious (but then, someone who totally disagrees with me may also find the answers obvious, I guess that's what philosophy is all about...)
But with the boxers, it's no one's fault. No one is more culpable than anyone else. A pursuit entered in to with total consent on both sides basically absolves either of responsibility for moral luck. That seems like the long and short of it.
Obviously the boxer that threw the punch may feel really bad but, to me, they shouldn't. It's nobody's 'fault'.
I got downvoted for trying to explain this a while back where there was a video of a drunk driver nearly (luckily) hitting a mother and pram. You put it much better.
hunty91 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:04:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is your classic example of deontological versus consequentialist ethics.
I see the two as different issues really. In the first one B is culpable for the death of the child but A is equally as ethically wrong.
The boxer scenario however there is no culpability. Z chose to fight and got unlucky. X wasn't at fault nor would W or Y had they been the thrower of the punch.
How any of the characters or relatives feel about it will probably be different but from an outsider perspective on the situation this is how I see it.
I guess this is something that happened whenever my grandparents visited. Back in 2014, we finally disconnected from their toxic relationship, and itโs also when I learned that they were abusive towards my mom.
Every single time they visited, my grandfather would step in dog shit. He would just manage to have it on the bottom of his shoe by the time he walked into the house. Also, the toilet clogged every time they came to our house until they left. Then it would unclog.
Thereโs also the time that when they came up our driveway, they backed into a tree and it fell on their car.
And letโs not forget the time my grandfather got into the argument with my mom about how โforteโ is pronounced. He got fucking pissed when she tried to explain the pronunciation.
Scenario A I would argue that both drivers are as bad as each other. They both carried out actions that obviously put others at risk. Those others have no say in the matter and are unable to defend themselves. The drivers may not intend to kill someone however they are obviously on some level ok with the risk they cause to others.
Scenario B. Id argue X should not feel morally culpable. His actions did result in a death however he took appropriate precautions with a willing participant. Unforeseen factors changed the outcome.
W is not morally culpable because there is nothing inherently wrong with carrying out a risky activity with a willing and fully informed participant.
The fact that the injured party in one scenario is fully aware of the risks and is not forced to partake changes the situation in my opinion.
I'd like to see more examples if im missing the point of this though
Acaedus ยท 1161 points ยท Posted at 18:30:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, I have this axe. It's been passed down to me from my grandfather. Overtime, the blade of the axe is chipped, and needed replacing, so I replace it. Time passes, and now the handle is worn out, so I replace that, until eventually, the whole axe has every parts replaced.
Is this axe still the same axe that my grandfather has given to me?
I came across this in a game, where an android has replaced every single parts of his body, except for his broken leg. He refuses to replace it, because it's his only remaining original part. When you ask him why, he asks you if he replaces it, is he even the same 'person' he was? Or is he now somebody different
immanoel ยท 562 points ยท Posted at 22:47:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whenever this question comes up, I am always reminded of this
I remembered once, in Japan, having been to see the Gold Pavilion Temple in Kyoto and being mildly surprised at quite how well it had weathered the passage of time since it was first built in the fourteenth century. I was told it hadnโt weathered well at all, and had in fact been burnt to the ground twice in this century. โSo it isnโt the original building?โ I had asked my Japanese guide.
โBut yes, of course it is,โ he insisted, rather surprised at my question.
โBut itโs burnt down?โ
โYes.โ
โTwice.โ
โMany times.โ
โAnd rebuilt.โ
โOf course. It is an important and historic building.โ
โWith completely new materials.โ
โBut of course. It was burnt down.โ
โSo how can it be the same building?โ
โIt is always the same building.โ
I had to admit to myself that this was in fact a perfectly rational point of view, it merely started from an unexpected premise. The idea of the building, the intention of it, its design, are all immutable and are the essence of the building. The intention of the original builders is what survives. The wood of which the design is constructed decays and is replaced when necessary. To be overly concerned with the original materials, which are merely sentimental souvenirs of the past, is to fail to see the living building itself.โ
That's addressed by the second part of the ship of Theseus. If you take the part that's being replaced and build a second ship, such that all of the original parts, and design, are on this second ship, is it "the ship of Theseus" or is the first ship that's had all its parts replaced?
[deleted] ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 04:32:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its true that the carbon molecules on the ship and the carbon molecules on Someplanet IV are just as good, and it makes sense to scan you, tear you to shreds, and reimplement you somewhere else. There is a lot of Sci-Fi where thats what the teleporter does, clones you elsewhere and kills you here.
However, not in Star Trek, which explicitly does NOT tear you apart. The carbon of your body, the oxygen in your lungs, the bits of corn in your colon from lunch, its all moved in a thin line elsewhere, but its the exact same bits.
There are of course individual episodes which seem to support kill/clone technology, but there are individual episodes of star trek that support anything, the show is pretty weird sometimes, you have to either accept that its contradictory or heavily head canon.
Most of us pick one, that what we see on screen is an interpretation and not a perfect retelling, or that the characters misinterpret what is really happening despite seeming really confident. I like the second group because its more fun, and the most common fan theory on the kill/clone transporter episodes is that the transporter sometimes brings in people from alternate universes, which we explicitly know happens sometimes because of the Mirror Universe.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:18:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
However, not in Star Trek, which explicitly does NOT tear you apart.
Doesn't it, though? It converts you into an energy pattern and then reconfigures you back into your previous state, on the other side. To me, that seems fundamentally the same as tearing you apart atom by atom. Any difference is semantic quibbling.
As you say, it's the same atoms, as opposed to copies, which is how it works in other sci-fi properties. But it still involves tearing you apart atom by atom, which for me is where the problem comes in.
There's nothing special about the atoms in your body that make you you. What makes you you is the arrangement of those atoms in that particular configuration.
So what does it matter if it's the same atoms, or different atoms?
Well, we know that if we use different atoms to create a clone of you, that wouldn't be you. That would just be a copy of you. This, presumably, is what leads people to believe that it's necessary to use the same atoms.
But I'm not convinced of that.
I think the real problem is continuity of consciousness. And it's a problem regardless of whether you're talking about reconfiguring the subject using the same atoms, or a different set of atoms.
You aren't so much being torn apart as you are being moved, as energy, somewhere else.
The truth is that this idea is very silly, and if there were a teleporter, it would be a clone/kill set-up, any other method would be pretty silly - as you say, the atoms don't actually matter.. However, the idea of a soul is one that is present in Star Trek, which contains a lot more fantasy than most people like to think. Conciousness, souls, energy patterns, its all treated as this special magic thing in, and this essence being moved is an integral part of the teleporters function. It is made explicit that they are moving your actual form, in all parts, elsewhere.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:41:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You aren't so much being torn apart as you are being moved, as energy, somewhere else.
I don't see how it's possible to convert someone into an energy pattern without deconstructing them atomically. But let's just say that it is somehow possible. The problem is still continuity of consciousness. Unless that continuity of consciousness is somehow maintained while you're holding in an energy pattern (because it's not always instant, we've seen how it's possible for these energy patterns to be stored as data for an indefinite amount of time), then the problem is still there.
Conciousness, souls, energy patterns, its all treated as this special magic thing in, and this essence being moved is an integral part of the teleporters function.
But to me this seems no different from hand-wavey woo woo, saying that it just works because it just works.
I can accept that it just works within the fictional confines of the show, but when we talk about the philosophical ramifications of the transporter problem, we're discussing whether it would be realistically possible in our world.
I don't see how its possible for a Vulcan mind meld to function (or any of the very common telepathy), particularly light years apart.
It is woo woo, but its an established, factual kind in that fictional universe. You aren't wrong about the general transport problem, but its not Star Treks, which solves the problem by saying "it doesn't, because".
I'd like to see the transporter as 'reading' you and then using uncertainty principle to 'observe' that you are in a different location - using a colossal amount of energy to DO that perhaps. but it neither tears you down or copies you. you just ARE in another location.
However, the continuity of consciousness is a big one. But if it bugs you at all, do NOT think about when you go to sleep and wake up. it will ruin your life.
Presumably all the parts have been replaced for a reason, rendering this new creation 'the imminent shipwreck of Theseus'. Subsequently, there will again be only one ship.
I feel that this is slightly different, as with buildings, ships or axes they are merely trying to preserve something of value that exists, hence replacing sails/handles/roof/materials in general.
If we copy you, we aren't trying to preserve you. We just copy you. If we were to transplant you a new liver or kidney, that would be more similar to this philosophical theme I guess.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:38:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In the classic way that the problem is presented, the parts that make up the whole are replaced individually, over time.
But in the example Adams gives, the entire building burns to the ground, and is then rebuilt from scratch. So it is much more like a copy.
I'm not very sure if this is a valid point, but it seems that there are maybe a couple things that distinguish the situation of copying the building from copying a human. One, the building is designed and built by humans. This means that the value/essence of that building isn't defined by the materials it's built with, but by the humans who designed and/or value it. If you rebuild a new building that's identical, it can still serve the same purpose the old one did. Humans are not designed and built in this way.
Humans also have consciousness to throw a wrench into this all. Even if you make a copy of me, will that copy have my exact same consciousness? If not, then the physical copy is not quite the same nor will it have the exact same purpose or value. If it does have the exact same consciousness, then what the fuck, do I get to experience two realities at once?
Hopefully this wasn't too far off the point or really dumb.
Does a perfect copy matter less than the original? I would argue "no".
If you were instantaneously, perfectly duplicated, and I hand you a gun and ask you to shoot the copy in the head - would you not be committing murder? The copy has all your history, all your memories, all your loves and foibles, your hopes and dreams.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:25:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's really beside the point.
I would say, yes, the copy is a human with all the same legal rights and liberties that the original has.
Yes, he has all your memories, all your loves and hates and hopes and dreams.
But none of that makes him you, which is the point. If your clone committed a murder, it would not be fair to charge you with the crime.
Fair. You should not be held culpable for your clone's actions, I totally agree.
So which one of you gets your house? Which one should your husband stay with? What about your job?
Then, what if I tell you that you are the copy? You were assembled instantly ten minutes ago, with a copy of a whole life's memories.
Then, say I can prove it - I ask you what color a beloved childhood toy is, you confidently answer red, and I show you it's blue - that was one memory they edited just as proof.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:59:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are you, and your clone is not you. So the house, the job, the spouse, ethically these all belong to whichever version acquired them, whichever they originally belonged to, whether that's the original or the copy.
That is the case whether we know who is the copy and who isn't.
But again, to me, these questions seem irrelevant to the point I was originally making, which was about consciousness. The clone has its own distinct consciousness, it's not merely you in a separate body.
My answer to this is no. Transferring files is essentially creating an identical copy, then deleting the original. Even having your consciousness would essentially be a digital clone that is just like you. So it's an Identical Copy, but not the same.
It becomes more interesting when you consider the fact that every single atom in our body has already been replaced at least once. We might literally not be the same person as our 5 year old self.
Many of the neurons remain from birth, but the atoms that make up the cell do eventually get replaced. There was a study conducted where they stopped the cells from being able to perform maintenance duties and they began to atrophy very quickly.
The brain uses around 40% of the bodies total energy. That energy is stored in the form of molecules. Where do you think they go?
There was a study conducted where they stopped the cells from being able to perform maintenance duties and they began to atrophy very quickly.
I dont see the relevance?
Where do you think they go?
I think you've confused me saying "many" with "every".
Thanks to carbon isoltope analysis, it seems that carbon atoms in the DNA of our neurons are likely the same carbon atoms since birth. Which makes sense when you think about it.
Because you seem to be confused, the man was just conceding the argument to him. By point, he was not referring to score, but rather his point, his argument. The same point as in "what's your point".
I agree that I've never seen "concede the point" used like that, and rather it's usually something akin to "concede the argument" or just "concede", but there's no need to be a dick even if he referred to a figurative scoreboard.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:55:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm just tossing stones into the lake trying to make them skip. Some sink. Also I'm pretty bad at it. Perhaps my stones are too heavy or not flat enough.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:42:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think self/consciousness has more to do with information processing and integration, and in particular yourself processing yourself. The medium it runs on only need to be stable enough for the process to continue, and it can as atoms are swapped out.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:10:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not the same person I was when I first typed this comment
The ship of Theseus is actually used as a potential way of avoiding the copying problem.
If you replaced each cell with an artificial one, one by one, you are theoretically part original and part new.
If you imagine consciousness as being an emergent property of at least part of the brain: the chain of subjextive experience isn't stopped and thus potentially you've transferred yourself.
sh1ps ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:05:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I recently read a pretty good sci-fi novel that covered something along these lines. It's called We Are Legion (We Are Bob). It's a little silly, but I found it really interesting how the author talks about the results of consciousness replication.
martixy ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:24:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And what defines sameness?
How can you tell one electron from another? Answer: You can't.
This is a big part of the concept of cloning that i can't get people to understand. Like in san junipero(black mirror episode) they aren't transferring the conciousness of people to a digital landscape, they are just creating a new copy of them. The old person still exists and will die like normal, not all of a sudden open their eyes and see the what the digital version sees.
How I best explain it is that you could clone someone(or their mind) and create a clone while they are still alive. Now would you be seeing what your clone is seeing? No, because you are two seperate things that exist exclusivley, so you would keep seeimg whatever your original self sees.
This could have been cool to explore but they didn't do that unfortunatley.
In San Juniper the people who are trying it out have their memories of San Junipero in the real world though. In that universe they are legitimately transferring consciousness.
salbris ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:10:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well that might be how it's done in Black Mirror but that doesn't hold up practically. Those neurons aren't transferred the patterns are copied and replicated in software.
You could do that with a (near instant) data transfer back to the brain when they wake up, implying you can rewrite brain cells/ neurons as well as transfer them
You could keep your consciousness the same, though, by transferring the brain bit by bit and allowing signals to continue travelling between the uploaded brain and the original.
this idea falls apart, when you realise that "original" is not a quality that exist in nature, just in language. Originality is just a human concept not an inherent quality of matter.
It's not physically the same axe, but it holds the same sentimental value as if it was still the original. If you transfer a file, the original is gone, but it is still the same.
What ties you to the original versus the copy? Sentimental value is to some extent transferable, and intrinsic origin is arbitrary. I'd say a perfect clone is the same thing.
I hope this makes some kind of sense. I just replied to someone else regarding Plato's theory of form, this is me expanding on that theme and thinking it through as I type it haha
You could argue that it is, as it embodies the original "Form of your grandfather's axe". Maybe it is an even more improved version of your grandfathers axe, striving towards ideal "axeness". Although as soon as he gave it to you, you can no longer call it your Grandfathers axe, it is now Acadus's axe. As Acadus's axe, it experiences a whole new existence that your grandfather is unaware of. So maybe it's not the new parts that make it "Not your grandfathers axe" but its new found experience.
Now with a person, although your cells are replaced every x amount of years, you still possess the same essence, the same experience of experiencing. This essence endures an amazing amount of changes (hopefully) biologically, experientially, ethically, etc. You could argue that through life you are falling from or striving towards an ideal perfect version of you.
With the axe, its falling apart and degradation would be its falling away from ideal axeness and it's improvements and add ons would represent its movement towards ideal "axeness" but it would not prevent it from being the same axe. Although maybe perfect axeness is achieved when it loses its individual differences thus becoming indistinguishable from perfect axness.
IMO any attempt to address the ship of theseus problem without consideration of Greek concepts of being is fucked. Itโs just not solvable because you donโt have the metaphysical vocabulary to describe whatโs happening, to (a) differentiate the โdifferentโ ships, and (b) describe the continuity of the โsameโ ship.
But if you have that vocabulary and accept the concepts behind it, the problem is trivial: The โship as materialโ is obviously not the same ship; the โship as formโ is always the same ship.
So, yes, itโs the same ship. And no, itโs not the same ship. You have to define what you mean when you ask โIS it the same ship?โ What do you mean by โisโ? What kind of โbeingโ are you asking about?
At which point: Welcome to 400BC, enjoy your stay, have fun spending possibly years reading about Platonic Forms and Aristotelian Causes.
I'll concede your point of transfer of ownership to make this point: say Acadus keeps all the old parts and one day assembles them into a new ship... er axe. Which axe is the original?
I would argue Acadus's improved ship... I mean axe. Consider this, if someone took all your nail clippings and skin particles and atoms and so forth and compiled them into another person, would your essence/conscious experience suddenly teleport to the old compiled body? It's almost like a snake shedding his skin. It seems there would be nothing to animate the old body and maybe that axe would be so defective that you could hardly call it an axe, maybe it fell so far from it's ideal that it lost all "axeness".
Real question is whether the "idealised form" changes over time/according to our experience with said axe, and by extension do we change too due to our further interactions with the axe?
By the same token, are you even you? Your cells die, you shed/excrete them in some way or another, and then your DNA with the help of proteins and amino acids make new cells that compose "you". What are you?
You are an ensemble of continuous processes, a function, if you will. That way change can be accounted for. Another interesting question is: Since you are constantly exchanging elements with your surroundings, where does the border between you and the rest of the world lie?
In the same vein, do you think consciousness is the result of a massive amount of logical next steps? I thought about this when I was tripping once. The only way that I can have thoughts is after a shit ton of "if___ then___"s like object permanence and language. This is how computers work, yes?
I have no idea. It seems to make sense; after all, the entire universe seems to be just that. Then again... why aren't we just automatons that follow some sort of programming? When we touch a hot iron, why do we feel pain? Why don't we just automatically remove our hand from the hot iron, unaware of the whole thing? Why are we aware at all? And how can awareness come out of a bunch of elements that don't exhibit this quality? How do they interact with each other for awareness to be possible? Again, I have no idea.
Legendary British grindcore band Napalm Death have been around and actively releasing new material (their last few albums are fucking awesome too, fwiw) since the early 1980s.
There are no original members remaining in the band.
Came here to say this one. In my head its also known as the Sugababes problem. A British Pop group whoโs members left one by one and then formed a group, with each other... So who are the Sugababes?? Its a perfect example of the Ship of Theseus and I love it.
I mean straight down to the point it is not the same axe. Who cares though? That is the question, the universe doesn't care about the axe but you do. The axe still has a history that connects to your grandfather and that history is probably more important than the actual item itself.
I would argue that that isn't the only original part of him. His consciousness is the deciding thing. If he completely replaces his body, he is still "him," because his consciousness is in a new body. His body parts are part of "him," but if they are removed they are no longer. For living beings, the thing that makes a person a person is their mind, not the body parts that make them up.
This is more a question of how we categorize things. If we look at axe heads and handles as the thing rather than the part of the thing then nothing changes.
Doctor Who talks about this as well, which is a given since the main character can turn into a different person to cheat death, right down to the brain (which affects their personality to a degree).
In the end, I think the Doctor decided it was their memories, core beliefs and core personality traits that made them who they were, even if everything else changed. "Same software, different case."
Ironically, I consider this to be more of a linguistic puzzle than a philosophical one. I thrives on the fact that โsameโ is an ambiguous identifier that needs to be clarified. Consider the statement โSarah and I watched the same movie.โ Now consider the statement with different modifiers. โSarah and I watched the same movie together.โ โSarah and I watched the same movie apart.โ The former same equates cinematic viewings while the later equates compares cinematical content.
Now, letโs add modifiers to the Ship of Theseus. โIs the ship the same material?โ โIs the ship the same structure?โ โIs the ship the same legal entity?โ These questions are substantially easier to answer. The difficulty arises when we fail to clarify what modifier is appropriate to use when evaluating the question โis it the same ship?โ
Furthermore, if the axe/ship/androidโs old parts were all salvaged to make a new one, is THAT the same axe/ship/android as the original?
keeleon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:17:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To me the axe is the blade. So replacing the blade replaces the axe. The ship is a much better example of that.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:51:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The answer depends on what you consider the same. Does replacing something over time mean it's the same thing to you? May seem like I'm being a smart ass, but my point is, something being the same or different is just an abstract label we put on something. It is something that exist in our minds alone. It all depends on your perspectives and beliefs.
I don't understand why this is even a paradox? The answer is no, it's not the same axe once every bit has been replaced.
If you have some of the old axe in there, you can theoretically call it the old axe that has just been repaired. Or you can call it a new one with memories of the old. That part is up for debate.
But once you replace every part, no; it's not part of the original axe that you started with.
On a physical level i'd say it's not the same axe, but the concept and name of the object persist. The name you call your grandfather's axe is not the name of the axe itself but the concept of it or what it represents, if that makes sense.
This paradox really becomes complicated when you look at the mind.
If i replace parts of my brain on a cellular level(This is important to take into account) until it's physically not what it was - am i the same person? I would say yes, when people call me by my name they're not referring to my face nor my brain, they're referring to my mind; so as long as my mind is persistently intact i will remain who i was.
But what if you're replacing larger sections, like the frontal lobe or brain stem? Would you be the same person then? I'd say, it depends. As long your memories have not been touched and as long as the replacement parts fulfill the exact same role that your brain did with the exact same structure - possibly down to a cellular level - then you should be the same person.
But as you're replacing your whole brain chunk by chunk i'd say it's safe to assume your memories will eventually be copied-andpasted, meaning you would no longer be the same person.(Unless of course there's a way to transfer memories somehow without just copying them)
Hopefully, my viewpoint sounds coherent, i'm not at all good at formulating my thoughts.
if the answer is "obviously no because it changed over time" then think about how all the cells in your body continuously deteriorate, die and are replaced. in a matter of months, you are like the axe, made of entirely new parts.
the real question is why the fuck are you using the axe of out matters that much to you.
qner ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:23:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't that happen with the human body also? Over time every cell dies and gets replaced. Even if the building blocks are different now, the overall structure yields the "same" person
Reminded me of John Dies At The End.
"Say you have an ax - just a cheap one from Home Depot. On one bitter winter day, you use said ax to behead a man. Donโt worry - the manโs already dead. Maybe you should worry, โcause youโre the one who shot him. Heโd been a big, twitchy guy with veined skin stretched over swollen biceps, tattoo of a swastika on his tongue. And youโre chopping off his head because even with eight bullet holes in him, youโre pretty sure heโs about to spring back to his feet and eat the look of terror right off your face.
On the last swing, the handle splinters. You now have a broken ax. So you go to the hardware store, explaining away the dark reddish stains on the handle as barbeque sauce. The repaired ax sits undisturbed in your house until the next spring when one rainy morning, a strange creature appears in your kitchen. So you grab your trusty ax and chop the thing into several pieces. On the last blow, however - Of course, a chipped head means yet another trip to the hardware store.
As soon as you get home with your newly headed ax, thoughโฆ You meet the reanimated body of the guy you beheaded last year, only heโs got a new head stitched on with what looks like plastic weed-trimmer line and wears that unique expression of youโre-the-man-who-killed-me-last-winter resentment that one so rarely encounters in everyday life. So you brandish your ax. โThatโs the ax that slayed me,โ he rasps.
Although I love this idea as a philosophical question, I feel it has a rather simple answer from a more practical standpoint, which is what happens with objects that are subjected to this possibility in the real world.
That solution most commonly is to define one specific, usually indivisible part of the object to be the one you canโt replace. For example, if Iโm not mistaken, with guns you have one specific piece of it that has a serial number on it (and is the only piece you canโt buy easily). For ships, itโs the hull. For cars, itโs the frame.
Some of those are large enough that they could be, for example, cut in half and rebuilt, but then the part where the serial number is written is the important one.
It doesnโt answer the underlying question, but it does provide a solution we can use to get on with things in real life.
I'm the same person even though the cells in my body have grown and died and been replaced. (well, most of them; IIRC brain cells are weird in that department).
If I open a game on my computer and sit still in it, so that the image i see being rendered does not change from my perspective, I'm seeing a newly-rendered but visually identical frame twelve to thirty times per second. Heck, i'm constantly receiving a new set of photons projected from my screen into my eyes.
I think it's all about how we define meaning and identification of things/people/ourselves.
I think it's a new axe but with the addition of the memories of the old axe in all those who know the story, so it's not just a random axe but still not the original.
For living being it's easy : yes, we're still the same entity even if al our body changes, it does it naturaly during all our life as we age. Each part is replaced permanently so no real problem here.
Interestingly, your body also does the same thing constantly. You are not the same person you used to be.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:29:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This becomes strangely more personal when you consider that after several years, the majority of your cells would have been replaced with new ones.
A youtuber called EpicNameBro brought this up in one of his Nier Automata playthroughs
I compare it to the fact that eventually all of our cells die off and we grow new ones that live one. The new cells keep up alive and are influenced by the existing cells. We develop into better humans as we live on, but ultimately I'm not the same person as I was 20 years ago. My history is there, but 7 year old me who loved cartoons and candy is only similar to me now. The difference is the ship's mechanics are much quicker at remaking it than nature works on a human body.
In my eyes, yes. Think of it this way, 7 years from now I will have an entirely different body. But people will still associate the name "Smashgunner" with me. it's the same as the axe. it may be an entirely different body now. but it is still 'grandpa's axe' because that's what it is to you. and what you will tell others that it is.
I mean, if you replace even one part, would it still be the same? I have had part of a bone replaced with cadaver bone and I like to think about this. Am I the same?
No matter what you do you will be plagued by regret. For example:โ if you marry, you will regret it, but if you donโt , you will regret that tooโ (canโt remember who the quote is from)
Likewise, if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with
[deleted] ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 09:54:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow that's horrible advice. You shouldn't force yourself to stay with someone you don't love. That's a recipe for an unhappy relationship and the other person will know something is wrong on your end and it will only make them miserable as well.
Wow it's actually a super famous song lyric and there's much more to the song. You're right and the lyric at face value is probably wrong, but the song has a good message.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:52:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sorry I don't know that song lyrics. I thought you were just trying to give advice
Couple of ways I interpret the song. First, if you can't be with a particular person, then you're alone and should learn to love the one you're with (yourself!). The other is that if you can't find your version of an ideal lover, you might want to take a look around and see what kind of people are actually in your life. Stop being so idealistic or you'll end up alone!
Plenty of other ways to interpret it, but that's what I've gotten out if it over the years.
It is advice that I just gave my son because he was feeling some regrets. He just joined the Army and sent a message to me that he regrets not taking deeper advantage of what I was offering him before he joined the Army. He felt like he wasted his time and failed to appreciate the opportunities that were available to him. I told him all of life will be like that and that he should appreciate what he has now and find the opportunities within what is available. The sentence above is a condensation of a much larger message.
I love this one, as I'm dealing with that in my life right now. I often wonder how great my life would've been by now had four years ago I didn't make one wrong choice. I'm alive, healthy, but not financially where I want to be and it's killing me daily. I often wonder if said bad decision is making my life better/worse than me living with constant regret.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:26:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Life is not about the pursuit of prosperity, but the development of the soul."
Stop comparing yourself to where you are now from where you could have been. That is part of regret. You are where you are. Reorient your point of view until it matches where you are and then do your best from there.
but not financially where I want to be and it's killing me daily.
If you stop regretting that "one bad choice", then you will not be killed daily. Life is filled with bad choices, all you can do is move forward. Every awesome experience that happens to you from now until eternity would not have happened if you had not made that bad choice.
In other words, the only REALLY bad choice is to choose not to keep going.
I'm so sorry to be that guy, but he's one of the few intellectually famous people from my country, so I'll defend the proper spelling of his name till I die/decide not to be on Reddit and actually get some work done.
It's Sรธren Kierkegaard. The 'รธ' is pronounced pretty much the same way as the 'ea' sound in 'Earl'. Also the two a's in his last name substitutes the letter 'รฅ', which kind of sounds like the 'a' in 'awesome'.
Again, I'm so sorry, but I couldn't help myself. Hopefully you can name drop him in a proper pretentious way at the next party ;-)
And if my short experience of Denmark is anything to go by, you also swallow the n in Sรธren and the d in Kierkegaard, ending up with something like "Surre kierker-gore"
No, Sรธren is pretty much the same way as you would say it (except the 'r' is the German 'r' in the back of the throat. The 'n' remains. The 'd' is silent though, but it ends right there and doesn't drag out like in 'gore'.
But you did get a lot out of a short experience with Denmark!
I speak German, so can make a bit of a guess reading Danish but quickly realised that the spoken version sounds very different.
I think it hit me when I realised that the sign saying Hรธvedbanegรฅrden and the announcement saying hurrborgor were the same thing.
Lovely place though. We hired a car and spent a few days staying in Jelling and just pootling around Jylland. Reminded me a lot of Suffolk here in England.
I'm experiencing this right now. If I don't ask out this girl to her face, I'll regret it forever. If I do ask her and she turns me down, I'll also heavily regret that. Lose-lose.
I took an economics class and the only thing that stuck with me is the concept of opportunity cost. Basically, when you choose to buy something (or get married in this case), you not only pay for that product, but you also pay for the lost opportunity to have bought any other product (other marriages or not getting married).
Well yeah. Like if youโve got a dollar and you want a candy bar and a soda. Either way the cost is one dollar and the missed opportunity of the other item. It just really makes you think about your decisions. Snacks. Cars. Marriage.
Reminds me of the game life is strange. The main character can unwind time to redo her decisions, but no matter what she picks she will regret or doubt something.
Ton777 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:18:14 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And I don't think it's really true. I decided a minute ago not to jump inside a volcano, I'm not "plagued by regret". There are often objective pros and cons to choices. You might not make a perfect choice, because such a thing doesn't really exist, but you can certainly make a better one.
Yes, but life is all about regret minimization (through these pessimistic lens). You have a great deal of influence to control the degree of your regret.
bepseh ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:06:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oddly, the paradox of choice comes from this. If you are given a thing, you will usually be happier with it than if you had been given a choice between that thing or something else. If you have to choose you will always wonder โwhat ifโ. If itโs forced upon you, youโll just enjoy it for what it is
Kinda freeing when you think about it. Just except that certain choices lead to regret. If you can accept it as a natural part of experiencing life, like growing pains, and then just move on.
I've just been playing a rather lovely little indie PC game called "Finding Paradise" where you play a pair of scientists who go into peoples' memories as they die to implant memories of that thing they always wanted to do, or "fix" regrets.
It's more a mildly interactive story than a game, but it's rather interesting. And funny, in a meta kind of way.
monsto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:12:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Never regret anything you do, never do anything you regret.
"Seemed like the thing to do at the time" is the mantra of the forward looker.
Is there a theory behind this because I havenโt read about this be do I experience this. My philosophy is that as long as your intentions are honorable, you do the best you can (integrity), there is no need to feel regret when shit goes wrong.
I disagree. I have very rarely regretted actions that I have done, while I have often regretted things I have not done (and thus think about what might have been). Even if doing something ended in a stupid or embarrassing outcome, I can remember my thought process when I decided to take the action, and I know that if I transported back in time Iโd still do it again. The regret is not the same as the โwell, Iโll never know what mightโve happenedโ, and it balances out with all the times I took action and it had a good, positive result.
This is Freudโs concept of Super-Ego. His whole theory of the mind will fuck with you, especially if youโre one of those people who likes to think of themselves as โweirdโ
F that! I got married and she's got dem' titties! Dilly Dilly!
Dn503 ยท 204 points ยท Posted at 23:30:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely the six degrees of separation
โSix degrees of separation is the theory that any person on the planet can be connected to any other person on the planet through a chain of acquaintances that has no more than five intermediaries.โ
TLDR: The idea that you know anyone in the world through six people
Thai guy -> Man who registered his name in a book -> Man who works in the civilian registry department and does a bit of traveling -> man who does a lot of traveling and has been to Morocco and met people there -> guy who runs a popular community club in Morocco -> Moroccan ceramics factory worker
Think about how many people you know, and consider that a large portion of these people know more people than you do.
I can probably say that I know over approx 400 people, and as it goes, a large number of these people will know even more, and a good number of them are people who travel a lot.
But what constitutes an acquaintance? Can I say that the CEO of the company I work for, who I've met once, knows the president of the US, who knows the Pope?
What's kind of depressing is how basically it's reliant on anchors of people. So only I may know 50 people,but one of those people is a socialite who knows 250+ people.
so if someone knows at least 44 people who also know the same number of people ( assuming this number doesn't contain each other and doesn't contain any person on the lists of my acquaintances) (mutually exclusive)
power this by 6 and you can get 7.2 Billion.
its pretty possible(( if your acquaintances have friends from a wide range of backgrounds/ someone diverse enough to increase the average to 44 per link))
am i right?
nlfo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:39:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only when it's Kevin Bacon.
Nyx124 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:10:55 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What about the Sentinelese people? Theyโre apparently the most isolated people on Earth, and no one has ever โmetโ them.
Right no ? If I want to speak to my mother, I can ask my brother to ask the mayor to ask the prefet to ask the president to ask Mark Zuckerberg to ask his staff to message her so she moves the fuck out of facebook and come to eat the diner before it's cold.
Just because you are linked to everyone in the world doesn't mean you can contact anyone with at least 6 people. It's impossible to know every single person combined even one of your acquaintances knows.
I had a discussion with someone once about suicide. They said they'd never do it because their friends and family would be devastated. I told them I wouldn't care because I'd be dead.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:24:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ehh, you're not quite right with the definition there. Solipsism is an epistemological position where the self is the only thing you can be sure exists. It doesn't inherently mean you BELIEVE everyone is fake, you just can't ever be really sure, which is true.
I prefer to consider metafictional solipsism; it feels like less of a circlejerk. Both Deadpool and Pinkie Pie have fourth-wall abilities, but in-universe, they're just crazy or wacky, respectively. Without the author's consent, neither can prove they're in a fictional universe.
What is it called if someone (that is to say I) have the idea that you (that is to say you) are the only conscious thing and everything else (including me) is just good at imitating living things?
This is just a linguistic non-issue lmao. "I think, therefore I am" is the basis of philosophy so I can't not "exist" just by the definition of the word "exist" in philosophy. Like if this is all just a simulation, I still existed as a program or whatever.
This fucked me up as a kid I fully believed this (still lowkey do) and got so scared and lonely it eventually led into derealization disorder :)))) But, it also calms me down in public because I know the people around me canโt be real because I donโt feel their feelings or live as them and Iโm the only one I experience so nothing matters.
losark ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:58:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it getting a bit solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
Or recently, this trend of โwhatโs something ALL men/women have experienced?โ And my first thought is always โway to immediately exclude trans and non binary peopleโ
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 06:45:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Be the change you want to see, make that "what's something ALL non binary people have experienced" thread.
What is the not written rule of Reddit?
What is your WTF moment?
The last thing you touched is your weapon against zombies, how fucked up you are?
TQLY ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 06:56:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm kind of glad there isn't, because there would be so many saturated answers and reposts. Since these posts come rarely, the responses are fresh and new, but I totally understand where you're coming from.
If you don't do this already, jump in the new or rising section every now and then and comment on those so they're more likely to pop up on the frontpage!
sugnaz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:03:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wish there were too, and that these threads had more unique posts. I've seen a couple new things, but there are plenty of answers that are unrelated to the question, have been posted thousands of times before, or both.
There are like bots(or maybe even real people) that sometimes copy and paste answers when someone reposts a similar question. I said this as a statement, but I'm not entirely sure what the hell it is, but I do know it happens because I've seen the exact same reply to threads that had similar questions that I've seen in the past and just confused the fuck out of why someone would steal someone else's story. The answer is karma, but HOW did they find that answer so quickly and know to repost it? It just messes with me a bit cause it seems intentional and not for straight up karma related reasons.
And I'm not talking about "what's are obvious red flags" "rude to waiter", I'm talking copied stories from other people.
The idea that the color that I see with my sight might not be the same color as the one you see with your sight. Of course we both recognize an object as the same color because we were both taught the same name for that color we see. Another way to think is โwhat if someone else saw the opposite color on the color wheel rather than the real colorโ. Theyโd still call red red but their mind would see green.
i genuinely thought i had come to this independently, and thought it was a really interesting topic, until i heard someone on a podcast use it as an example of fake deep stoner talk.
How come when he put the orange in his mouth to make Walt laugh he didn't die? Isn't that Coppola's signature foreshadow! Come on Damon Lindelof, figure it out!
campex ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:52:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe it was to throw off the cinephiles looking for those tropes.
locke dies and the evil deity (jacobs counterpart) inhabits his body. after that he can turn into the smoke monster. at least i think thatโs what happened. iโve watched 3 times and still have no clue
Whatโs also weird are the things that someone could have come up with hundreds of years earlier but just didnโt. Like stirrups werenโt something that required any huge infrastructure but it made mounted combat so much more effective.
Other people don't get to decide what's interesting to you.
What if he decided that other people get to decide what's interesting to him? Also, that's absolutely how a lot of people's minds work. We see what others find interesting and follow suit.. We're pack animals to our very core, and that comes with the territory. So saying that's not how it works seems disingenuous.
Lol same here. I tried to explain it to my wife and she thought I was crazy but I was serious. Glad to see it's a legit thing. I mean it makes perfect sense, there's literally no way to know.
I think this is a thought that many people come to on their own, and you shouldn't feel bad about that cause there's plenty of people who will go their whole life having never pondered it. It's also not a dumb thing to think about, or "fake deep stoner talk" because, from my point of view, it is a simple thought that can open your mind to many new ideas. It's what caused me too look into a lot more of stuff like this.
IKROWNI ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:04:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ha that's funny I thought I was the only person that thought about colors that way. I try to explain it to other people and they just look at me like I'm nuts. But then again I do live in Florida.
unfortunately not the exact episode. iโm almost positive it was an episode of Stuff You Should Know but iirc it was just an aside in an episode on an unrelated topic.
Thanks. Itโs been awhile since Iโve listen to their podcasts, but I still have the app on my phone. I guess I have an excuse to open up that app again.
What crosses my mind often is how unbelievably fucked up our human world is in terms of color. Our white light isnt actually white. Its red green and blue. Completely arbitrary on a universal standpoint.
Imagine we go to an alien world and whenever they're indoors, they shine pure bright purple, orange and brown EVERYWHERE.. their video screens are just completley unrecognizable coloured shapes and hues...
Animals and our pets must really find it disconcerting
Yeah, imagine if we gained the ability to see another primary color that's outside of our current range. Suddenly, two things that we used to call white are now different colors because one of them now has another color.
I don't know what you mean. If we had the ability to see infrared, then the things we formerly called white would be divided into "things that contain all the light that we can now see" and "things that contain all the light we can now see except infrared".
It's like if we only had Red and Green cones and so we called the light that contained all other visible light Yellow. But then we got the ability to see Blue light as well. So now we need to differentiate between Yellow and White.
I think what he means is that there aren't secret colours out there, we can already measure the possibilities with instruments. Like people with a fourth cone don't see new colours, they just have a greater selection of hues.
Runixo ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:34:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
People with a 4th cone have that coneโs peak response within the cones we already have. So itโs not able to tell us about the presence of light that we were otherwise blind to. It just makes it easier to differentiate between light that we could already see.
Imagine we go to an alien world and whenever they're indoors, they shine pure bright purple, orange and brown EVERYWHERE.. their video screens are just completley unrecognizable coloured shapes and hues...
Interesting choice of colours, given that neither purple nor brown light exists.
What do you mean our white light isn't white? If you're referring to white light on a computer screen disllayed through rgb output you'd be correct. But white light by definition is light made up of all the different wavelengths of light, i.e. not just RGB. There are many sources of actual white light on earth as well as any other colour on the visible spectrum. Including "purple, orange and brown"
White light doesn't really have to be made up of a spectrum of visible-length photons. Any sufficiently bright source will appear white because the human perception of "white light" is just a high number of activated photoreceptors. But human photoreceptors do have wavelengths of maximum absorbance in the red, blue, and green regions I believe.
You're really limiting yourself by sticking to the tiny range of the light spectrum that we can actually observe. You don't even have to go to an alien planet. The Mantis Shrimp has 12 color receptors. That's 9 more than humans. Imagine a color you can't even imagine. Now do that 9 times. That is how the Mantis Shrimp do.
Fits right in with what you're describing. Basically no two organisms experience reality the same way, and in fact experience it so differently that they could be said to be living in different universes.
From skimming the thing: Imagine you could flip your brain-eye between seeing a ball as red and seeing it as green. If it's just a simple flip, your brain won't change appreciably. Therefore you won't notice anything happening, even though your experience will differ wildly. That would be silly, because red is nothing like green.
This doesn't dispute inverted qualia at all between people, only the self. Sure, if my colors slowly inverted, I would eventually notice it. That doesn't mean that somone can't be born with that switch already flipped such that the inverted colors is all he knows.
Right. The paper is chiefly concerned with the idea that experience (and consciousness) is a developmental thing. Different experiences imply remarkably different brains - but perfectly copying a brain with software should result in machine consciousness.
Well, it does dispute it. Chalmers is arguing that functionally identical brain hardware will produce identical experience. That means if another person has different color experience, then their brain is functionally different from yours. The whole point of the inverted qualia argument is that the qualia are the only difference between the two systems. That two people with different brain hardware would experience color differently isn't any more interesting than saying "some people are colorblind" (for the sake of argument, pretend color blindness happens in the brain and not the eyes -- if we're moving off of color you could say "some people have face-blindness" or whatever).
And the thought experiment in the paper actually does perform the "brain-eye" flip by routing some of your brain processing through someone else's (silicon) brain.
jw2702 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 21:49:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt think it can ever be made certain that someone doesnโt see the same colour as someone else, but thereโs strong evidence to suggest that we should see the same colours. Eyes have a molecule called โrhodopsinโ which converts specific wavelengths of light into a specific electrical signal which is sent to the brain. These specific wavelengths are each of the colours we know, so thatโs the science. Vsauce did a great video on it actually.
I thought they were gettong more at the fact that sinxe we haven't had experiences while building up an understanding of the concept the actual full sized idea of anything in our head represented as neuronal relations isn't the same.
Why though? Color perception varies from species to species because of anatomical differences, but if humans share the same physiology, including the mechanism for interpreting light converted to electric signals, why then would something like that vary between people?
Well there's no objectivity to different colors as far as we can tell. You can't describe a color without using other colors or things associated with the colors.
You can via its physical properties such as its wavelength? Like, "blue light falls into the 400nm spectrum"? why cant we assume assume that we perceive them the same, when the process by which we interpret the color and the different components we use to do so (like our brain, eyes, nerves) do not vary from human to human? Components/processes which and can be broken down into their respective physical properties and compared?
Eyes and nerves, sure. But consciousness is so much of a mystery right now that we canโt say that itโs the same for everyone. For example, some people actually โseeโ an image of something when they picture it in their mindโs eye while other people think itโs just an expression. Link.
Color is strange, but if you think about it as frequency it's a bit different. Why is the question never framed with sound? How do we know this sound sounds the same to you as it does to me?
The big refutation to this Iโve thought of is the pretty consistently popular color combinations. For example, red and black is considered a really cool combination. Now obviously if my red is your green and my black is your yellow, then weโd appreciate the combination differently, since yellow and green isnโt as appealing as red and black (generally, as in itโs less popular).
Of course, we could suggest that colors are just rotated- suppose my black is your white and my red is your blue. While white and blue is a pretty popular combination, I doubt that it is of the same popularity as red and black (whether itโs more or less popular is unimportant- it isnโt exactly the same). And thatโs a โ180 rotation,โ which isnโt necessarily the case. Whoโs to say the rotation wouldnโt be more subtle- say, my black is your grey and my red is your orange. Thatโs not an awful combination, but itโs not as popular as red and black.
The fact that there are definite, specific combinations of colors that people find more appealing than others consistently is what undermines this theory to me.
So if you ask a bunch of people to rate red and black as a combination between 1 and 10 and get an average thatโs far from 5, youโd imagine that people see it the same way (if the average is near 5, however, it doesnโt mean that people necessarily all see it differently; you would just expect that if everyoneโs colors are randomly jumbled up, or even perhaps if weโre all just shifted by some rotation).
The fact that we all pretty much agree white and brown isnโt an incredible look but black and red is popular tells me that weโre all seeing the same thing.
Check out color constancy(at the core of "the dress"), qualia, and colorblindness.
As far as measuring wavelengths, Magenta doesn't exist, it has no wavelength, we synthesize its "color".
Here is an article showing strawberries made of entirely, and literally, of only black and white pixels(open it with GIMP or PS and inspect for yourself, I did!), but we perceive the image as red strawberries on a plate with a blue pattern and yellow border on a wood table with multiple shades and tints of brown.
Color constancy TL;DR: When you see a dirty white car or a car parked under a canopy providing it shade; if a police officer were to ask you to describe it you would probably say it was a white car because you ignore the dirt and shade. The actual literal color would be gray, but we are able to extrapolate all other scenarios based on our experience and derive the true color being discussed.
As a colorblind person, color constancy provides me with a tremendous amount of what I perceive as color. We know strawberries are red so we use color constancy to make them appear that way. I can make grass appear red or green to myself based on this with decades experience as a deutan(green blind person) using tons of color constancy to inform my perception. Think of it like looking at the corner of a ceiling and making it appear to yourself as concave or convex at your whim.
As you can see, with all of this in mind(double dad pun!), I think there are far more interesting disparities between individual people's perception of color than figuring out if our individual perception of "red"(ff0000) is exactly the same.
Not true. Pantones are just another way of naming colors, but they donโt do anything to ensure that you see the same thing I do.
Imagine Iโm wearing yellow-tinted glasses. We can both look at Pantone 118 and know that itโs called Pantone 118, but what you see and what I see will be very different.
Same thing is true with our eyes. I have no way of knowing whether what you call yellow is actually what I call red. I just know what we both agree to call that color.
What if we showed just a color wheel that didnโt have names and asked what color they thought was red?
If theyโre seeing yellow as red than they would pick the yellow, we would see that and pick the red. That way we would know. It wouldnโt have names so that wouldnโt influence them right?
But then, if I see green as red and you see yellow as red, we would still point out the one you saw as yellow and I saw as green, yet in our minds they are both ''red''. I think that makes sense? I'm not sure if I'm getting a headache right now...
Exactly but we would be point to different colors right? Iโm kind of confused myself as well but I feel like even if we both thought a color was red we would be point at 2 different colors that just so happened to be named red in our minds.
No, they would pick the red because their whole lives theyโve understood what theyโre seeing as yellow in their minds to be called red. You wouldnโt know the difference as a bystander.
Thatโs true but we could see that they picked the 4th color on the color wheel which they thought was red and if we see red at the 8th color than that would show that it is different colors we see no?
Since were only trying to see if the color they see is the same as the color we see that would be able to show us no?
You're not quite getting it. We would all point to the same color when asked to point to red because we were all taught that that red is that color. That tells us nothing about what color they are actually seeing in their head when they are looking at something.
Let's say that you see red as red but I see red as blue. We both look at a red apple and say that it's red. Someone shows us a color wheel and asks us to point to red and we both point to the same place.
smgavin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:25:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not exactly what they meant. If I were to modify your example, the color wheels would be rotated (as seen by different people) such that the color names would always be in the same spot even though they see different colors.
The comparison is faulty. Any given perons conception of a color isn't identical to any others, but they aren't so different as to correspond to a different color if somehow plugged into another persons brain. Coming from the same wavelength input at the start that person while sensing a difference would see it as a altered "red" not the same as some other random color like yellow.
smgavin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:01:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, I don't really agree with it myself, I was just trying to explain why that test wouldn't necessarily work.
One of the things that really brings that out is the "the dress", it really challenges what we think we perceive.
Arguably it could extend beyond colours. If we can all agree in what we are talking about whose to say everything from shapes to colours are all fantastically different, so long as they conform to the same rules
I see this posted everywhere and it's just so... dumb...
People, regardless of what colors they see, have a concept of light and dark.
That already disproves your claim. Give a group a paint swatch, and almost all of them will either agree that the color is either "light" or "dark".
Another problem is color blending. We all have a sense of colors that melt into one another, like a rainbow. Seeing random different colors would go against this, and so far nobody and has come up and said "Wait why do these colors go next to each other in a rainbow if they're complete opposite"
Also this claim is pretty ridiculous because of art. The very existence of art proves your claim is false because just putting random colors together, any skilled artist could call bullshit.
I'm not sure if you're understanding what I'm saying. Imagine if for one person, their color wheel has been turned around 120 degrees since they were born. They were shown the color red and taught that it was red but in their mind they see blue. But they recognize that blue as red just like how you recognize red as red. It doesn't affect the person's ability to differentiate between colors.
โSpinning the color wheelโ is a nonsensical statement. The color wheel doesnโt exist. Imagine human vision that extends to X-rays. What happens when you spin the color wheel then? Would you be arguing that some people โperceiveโ the color red as the ability to literally see through objects?
The color wheel is an abstraction of visible light to explain additive color mixing. It is no longer a useful abstraction beyond visible light. Trying to extend it beyond visible light is absurd, which is what my thought experiment tries to show. It organizes colors, and having it organize more than colors means you've lost its original context. It's like using the geometry of Punnett 'squares' to illustrate something about genetics: nonsensical.
The electromagnetic spectrum is a continuous gradient from long, low energy wavelengths to short, high energy wavelengths. The cones on your retina are literally labeled 'Short, Medium, and Long'. Extensions above and below our current threshold would simply mean having 'Very Short, and Very Long', etc. They don't necessarily have to contribute towards additive color mixing. The idea is to illustrate the non-arbitrariness of color as tied to the frequency of photons. There is no debate about bright vs. dark (amount of photons), treble vs. bass (frequency of sound), loud vs. quiet (amplitude of sound), yet color (frequency of photons) might be completely arbitrary?
It's an interesting idea, and I think it even could be possible in rare cases, but I see this as a physiological / biochemical question rather than a philosophical one. The usual cop-out: "the mind works in mysterious ways" is a dubious reason to believe it in the first place. All the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
My color wheel rotation example invalidates those. Itโs not random colors in that example. So the color blending and rainbow stuff does not change.the person would still say that red is at the top of the rainbow but theyโd be seeing blue.
Yes. I donโt see how that disproves me. Letโs say the colors were a bright red and a dark red. In my example, the person would see a bright blue and a dark blue. So theyโd still be agreeing that one is brighter than the other.
But is that due to the colors themselves or due to the fact that our eyes donโt see all light equally well? And how are you saying that they are at the same degree of deep? Certainly a deep yellow is darker than a bright red.
exactly. give them two colors that have the same tint.
Also primary colors exist. If someone saw orange as a primary color and knew basic color theory, they would know that you can't mix two colors to get orange, a primary color. but you can, which means that it isn't a primary color, which means that your theory would be correct.
but nobody out of the 107 billion people that have graced this planet have ever said that a primary color could be made from two different colors : )
I thought of this shit in the shower when I was like 15. Itโs blown my mind ever since and Iโve always wanted to find a way to prove it or disprove it.
I always thought that this were in fact the case with someone wouldn't the influencing factors of the color make it obvious that they are seeing the "wrong" one. For example how orange and brown colors entice us to eat/be hungry. Red has an influence on our sec drive ect.
But are those objectively linked with the color or are they subjectively associated with the color? Even something like the wavelength of light that causes you to see a color is subjectively associated under this theory.
Ah, good point. I think I was trying to get around the idea that the name we learn for a color is what would mask our differences in what we see. But if then we would say blue and red are switched for someone, yet they still have all the same influences are our own blue and red would it matter that they are switched at all? If everything that makes a color a color is switched as well then it wouldn't seem to matter
i also like to think that itโs possible we all have the same color as our favorite. like every human really likes the color red but since we donโt know what other people see it could look to them what we think is green.
Simusid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:33:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have a good eye and a bad eye. The good eye does 95% of the work. I got some rust in it when I was about 20 so I had it bandaged for a few days. Eventually when it came off and I was readjusting, I realized that I clearly and repeatably see red as different shades between my own two eyes. It's subtle but with the right brightness I can easily see it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:33:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Couldnโt this be disproven with shades of colors?
That's to do with our eyes to pick up on light of a certain wavelength when its surrounded by light of all other visible wavelengths. So that part is due to the eyes rather than the brain.
This used to blow my mind until someone pointed out that you can measure color. You can show two people the same wavelength and they only call it the same thing because they've learned it that way. There's evidence that some cultures are unable to even perceive certain colors because they don't have a word to describe it. Crazy!
Triton5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:17:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And if this was the case, everyone would feel lucky that they ended up with the best color mapping
If this was true than the entirety of the interior decoration industry would burn. Maybe there can be slight differations between the colours people see, but if not than a bunch of science papers wouldn't make any sense.
This is very interesting to think about. But what are the chances that someone's eyes/brain got coded just slightly different DNA to make them see the exact opposite color as everyone else? I mean, the same light is going into all our eyes so it would have to be within us that makes us register something different.
The brain has this property called plasticity which means that it can sort of be altered to suit different purposes. For example, some blind people have been found to use the visual part of their brain for sound and language. So it might be that the brain doesn't really have a built in code for understanding visual information so it just builds a code based on what it receives.
xcdesz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:39:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but color should be relative to the observer. If you see green, it is the same green as the grass, which I may see in a different way, but it is still "green".
Imagine if when you looked at red, you saw blue. When you looked at blue, you saw yellow. When you looked at yellow you saw red. If you'd been like that since birth, then you'd never know anything was different.
I have thought of the same thing as you and came to a solution.
Since we can't know if our color reds are different, we can look at shades of color. How red follows into orange, orange into yellow, yellow into green, and it makes since for those colors to flow. So if someone were to have a different color red then me, it would be off by a shade and all the other colors that are different between us, would only differ by a shade.
So it possible that someone else has the opposite color spectrum, so it would still make sense when comparing shades.
hopbel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:33:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I lost all interest in this one when I realized it is completely unverifiable and completely inconsequential. for all practical purposes it does not affect anything in any meaningful way.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:50:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But the way we see colour, it isn't like we see the same shades of yellow as we do blue. If someone saw blue as yellow, they'd actually be at a disadvantage - they wouldn't be able to tell apart all these shades that other people see. This is a good article that goes through it.
As long as it remains consistent in each persons perceptions, it doesn't have to be remotely similar across all senses.
GG2urHP ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:50:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
read about magic leap - they're changing the light spectrum that comes through the goggles so they can make adjustments that your brain interprets. Instead of looking at a screen for augmented reality, they're changing the light band to insert the object and your brain does all the work with blending and whatnot to make it super-perceptually real.
My colour choices in kindergarten always seemed to be completely different from everyone elses when we were free to pick our own colours... I think I was pretty proud of my green teddy bear with a purple background and big yellow splotches (probably for stars or something).... no one else had splotches
Personally I find the concept that there's colors out there that we cant even see to be far more mind blowing. Like, just try and imagine a whole new color... You're not gonna succeed, but they're out there simply because our dinky eyes only have access to a limited spectrum. We can only see 3 colors and all its combinations, the Mantis Shrimp can (if memory serves) see fifteen colors and all its combinations.
demvic1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:40:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Vsauce made a video on this
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:18:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
While this is true, I'm satisfied with the fact that we are both looking at the same wavelength. I can't be bothered to concern myself with whether or not the fart I smelled the other day is the exact same smell someone else smelled. The same molecules entered both our noses.
I remember a kid talking about this when I was in highschool but since they invented the various mri based mind reading machines, the fact that they work is an indication that everyone DOES have nearly the same mental experiences. Otherwise the machine would be incompatible with everyone except the person it was prototyped on.
Yeah I heared it before but I have one big problem with this theory.
People share favorite color mixes.
A lot of people like: Black Red, Black White, Red White,
Yellow Black, Blue White
A lot of people like the same dresses because of colors, if we all would see different colors but just think they are the same we would not share a lot of feelings with colors.
And before someone comes up with the most common counter-argument to this: That you can get someone elseโs eye and still see the samr colors...
Remember that the eye as a whole is not replaced, its only the Cornea.
Also the fact that what we are perceiving as color is how our brain interprets that data. If our brains interpret it differently, we could have different experiences.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I just explained this to my niece yesterday. She didn't get it.
We perceive objects as having color because they reflect a certain wavelength of light. Unless you're just talking about the naming convention we've used to label objects that reflect a certain wavelength of light? Yeah, we could have decided a long time ago to call yellow by the name blue...but otherwise the wavelength of light being relfected and the way our eyes are designed to perceive that are pretty much a scientific certainty.
What I'm saying is that you can't know if the color I see when I look at a wavelength of light is the same color you see when you look at that wavelength. Go ahead and try to describe a color without using other colors or things associated with colors.
A color only exists as those representations. The wordless image of a color we make in our heads only exists as built up memories and experiences with things we cone to consider as within that conceptual range. We don't, by the nature of the fact we aren't all genetically identical and start in the exact same environment with the exact same experiences develop the exact same "full sized" concept of a given color.
I completely agree, I just dislike that people use the difference between our conscious experiences to imply that this means there's more than physical phenomena going on.
All human eyes perceive color the same way, there's literally nothing fundamentally different about one eye from the next that could change how you perceive color.
And all objects reflect a certain wave length, it's impossible to have an object reflect two different wave lengths of light.
Color blindness tests wouldnโt be affected because, like I said, this is about the perception within the brain and nothing to do with how the eye sees light.
Think of it this way. Imagine if from birth, your color wheel was rotated 120 degrees. So instead of seeing red when you look at something red, you see blue. Instead of violet you see orange. And so on. While growing up, you were taught that the color you see when you look at a rose is called red. Youโd have absolutely no way of knowing you were any different from anyone else.
I know what you're saying, you don't need to keep repeating it, I understand the concept.
You just don't understand that there are multiple holes in your theory, there's 7 billion people ALIVE on this planet. There's absolutely ways to tell, if there's been billions of people with different color perceptions
How can you tell? If someone saw red as red and the other saw red as blue, theyโd still agree that itโs red. If those two people had a nonfunctional cone for the color red, then the first person would no longer see red and the second would no longer see blue.
if someone saw red as an orange than that's a problem, because if they took a middle school art class then they would know that orange is a mixture of two colors, you can't mix two colors to make a primary color.
With my example of 120 degree rotation, the primary colors are mapped to the other primary colors. Theyโd be taught that orange is a mixture of red and yellow and thereโd be no issue. Itโs just that in their mind, they are seeing violet when they look at orange.
The problem is that all colors give off a certain wave length, and that our eyes absorb that wave length the same way.
You can't just claim that someone's blue would reflect the same wave length as someone's yellow. That's impossible, because certain colors reflect certain wave lengths, and our eyes will absorb those wave lengths the same way.
It's been studied that our eyes RECEIVE and TRANSMIT the same wave length to our brain to produce "color".
To say that someone is perceiving color in a different way is saying that the object with the color is transmitting two different wave lengths of light, which is impossible.
I'm not saying that the object is transmitting two different wavelengths of light. I'm saying that we have no good reason to think that the color perceived by the brain is the same between different people. Everything in the process from the light being absorbed by the cones to the signal being sent to the brain is the same as you have said. I'm saying that we can't say anything about what it's like inside the brain because we don't absolutely understand consciousness. Even something like "viewing something in your mind's eye" is different between people.
Well, yeah. This is a question we don't have an answer to one way or the other. That's why it's in the realm of philosophy and questions rather than psychological facts.
When you are taught colours in school, you are told red is the colour of apples. But it may not be red to little Timmy, it might be what you call green, but because you and little Timmy are told that the apple is red, that's what's red to them. You have no way of knowing that little Timmy sees a green apple BECAUSE he was told it was red.
ramboy18 ยท 1471 points ยท Posted at 17:51:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I hope this belongs here but for me, "You are the universe experiencing itself."
To think that we have the same matter in our bodies that was once in a star before it exploded blows my mind. To me this is the most awe inspiring idea of creation.
[deleted] ยท 1212 points ยท Posted at 19:43:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am the universe jerking itself off four times a day.
You think jerking off 4 times a day is HEALTHY? Have you ever come away from watching porn and actually felt good and fulfilled about what you just did?
"Regard yourself as a cloud. Did you ever see a cloud that was misshapen? Did you ever see a badly designed wave? No, they always do the right thing. And if you will treat yourself for a while as a cloud or a wave, you'll realise that you can't make a mistake whatever you do"
2 quotes on this I like:
* "Given enough time, Hydrogen starts to wonder where it came from, and where its going." - Attributed to Edward R Harrison.
* โToday a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.โ - Bill Hicks
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:08:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here, and whether you can hear it or not the universe is laughing behind your back."
I know this isn't related but the first time I did acid my ego death had that saying going on repeat in my head, but with the addition that once you realize that you implode and start over and something about death, it was alot going on in the ol noggin but it's just really weird seeing this typed out when I've never read it before (maybe I have but I can't remember ever seeing it).
โThe nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.โ - Carl Sagan
To think that we have the same matter in our bodies that was once in a star before it exploded
I find it significantly less awe-inspiring after I'm reminded of the fact the same can be said of things filling the dark recesses of a god-forsaken, third-grade fast-food 'restaurant'.
The First Maxim of Kant's Categorical Imperative. Specifically, Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. In other words, only do something if you think that everyone else in existence, e.g. loved ones, friends, family, even people you don't know, also did this, all the time.
I actually try to live by this, every single day.
Examples:
Is it okay to flirt when you already have a significant other? What about "just kissing"? What about more? First, think about the kind of world it would be if everyone did that, including your significant other behind your back. Does that sound like the kind of world you want to live in? If not, don't do it. Not even once.
Lying. Is "white lying" okay? Only if you think it's okay for all people, all the time, also tell others, including yourself, white lies. If not, don't do it. Not even once. I'd hope I don't even need to go into other kinds of lying which people see as "worse" than "little white lies"...
(Lying, in itself, is a horrible thing anyway according to Kant's second maxim of his categorical imperative, but that's a whole other comment.)
Etc.
For me, it's mind blowing because it changed how I approach ethically tricky issues, and indeed, how I live my life. It's hard to stay with sometimes... But it also brings comfort and resolution at other times. I.e. is there something you're not sure it's okay to do? Well, think for a second. Is it a good, or at least harmless world, if everyone else also does this? Then you're golden. If that's not the kind of world you would like to live in, then don't do it, not even "just this one time". Problem solved.
So you (and Kant) think gay sex is immoral? If everyone did it then thereโs no procreation and the species dies out.
For the record, I have no problem with homosexuality. But I did argue this in a philosophy class once. In Miami of all places. Did not make a lot of friends that day. But the professor โappreciated my bravery.โ
Edit: I didnโt explain that well. The assignment was to try and disprove Kantโs version of morality and that was the route I went.
Respectfully, that's a good question and I upvoted you for it, but I disagree with your framing of that question.
If you're gay, and want to have gay sex, the world you're envisioning for the sake of figuring out if this is morally sound shouldn't be that "everyone has gay sex".
Why? Because the problem you're trying to solve isn't that. You're really asking if gay people are allowed to have sex with gay people. More generally, what you want to do is have sex with someone who is of a sex/gender you're attracted to. The world to envision, then, is one where all people are having sex with people who are of a sex/gender they're attracted to, rather than one where they're not (for one example, if they're feeling forced to not have gay sex when they're gay). With this, it's clear that gay sex isn't immoral.
One of my friends had a similar problem with Kant which boiled down to his framing of the question, which will hopefully help clarify what I'm trying to get at here. He asked if he were in a relationship with someone who only wanted to be in a monogamous relationship with him, but he thought polygamy was the way we should all go. Hence, in this hypothetical situation, he started seeing other girls too, maybe even having sex with other girls. All the while expecting that the original relationship should be fine, because he thinks polygamy is okay (regardless that his SO isn't okay with it). His reasoning was that he'd be okay with polygamy as a worldwide practice, so therefore it's okay, under Kant, to just start dating/having sex with other women, right?
Wrong. That's not the problem. The problem that needs solving here is that two people have made a (implicit or explicit) commitment to love only each other, but then one of them broke that commitment while still expecting the relationship to continue ("but I believe in polygamy" or not, regardless of excuse as the reasoning for the cheating doesn't end up being what's important). Does that sound like a world you want to live in? Where all people everywhere break important commitments with their SO while still expecting the relationship to continue unaffected? If not, then the potential solutions to this problem become clear: Don't cheat, talk with your SO about changing to a polygamous relationship, or leave the relationship if polygamy is that important to you.
Isnโt that the basis of what Kant is saying though. Extrapolate any behavior to the worldwide level. Does it break civilization? Then itโs immoral. Murder=everyone is dead, therefore breaking civilization. Lying=communication is no longer possible, therefore breaking civilization. Iโm not saying being with who youโre attracted to is immoral. The morality of homosexuality is something that people do debate about seriously. Iโm not one of them. I just thought it would be interesting to see it used as an example to test Kantโs theory. If men only had sex with men and women only had sex with women, then thereโs no next generation and human civilization fails. We got into bisexuality, IVF, and cloning and all kinds of stuff in the debate. Thatโs neither here nor there. Just saw your post and chimed in with my relevant memory from undergrad philosophy class.
Essentially, I believe we're ultimately agreeing while ending on disagreeing results ๐
With my example I'm saying gay sex is okay from the frame I posed: everyone has sex with the gender/sex they're attracted to. This does not "break civilization", hence it's okay. If we're only saying that all men have sex with only men, and all women have sex with only women, as you pose, then yes, that breaks civilization, but it's also hard for me to accept that that's the world we should be envisioning to solve the question "is gay sex okay". I do accept where you're coming from, and your interpretation of Kant, to come to your conclusion, though.
Let me put it another way. You are saying gay sex is bad because if everyone only did that, it would end civilization. I'm saying having sex with the gender/sex you want is fine, because that would not cause collapse. How to resolve these different answers, when they're ultimately related questions? I'd propose that your question is a subset of my wider, more general question. Does that mean that my answer supersedes? I could argue that yes, it should, but that does leave it on shakier ground for me to defend, too... Thoughts?
(Also, I know you don't actually believe that gay sex is bad, I'm just using "you" as my counterexample.)
Honestly, by the sound of it I would have loved to take part in that debate. Alas, most of my views on philosophy only developed more fully after I left University, anyway. So it probably wouldn't have been as much fun for me at the time...
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:00:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You do have to extrapolate, but the maxim you're trying to will into a universal law needs to take into account what you're actually trying to achieve, otherwise it also doesn't work.
Take for example, deciding whether you should marry your girlfriend. The maxim you're proposing cannot be "Marry your female partner", because that doesn't hold when applying that maxim to other females in the world - if a woman was proposed to by a man, they'd be compelled to reject and marry their female compatriots instead, according to that maxim. What you really need to be proposing, then, is "Marry your <loved partner/significant other/other wording denoting a person you want to live your life with>" or other similar wording, so that this can also apply to the females in the world.
That example with the axe murderer is a great example for what's wrong with Kant's Categorical Imperative, because you're right. You cannot lie to another moral agent. That said, I believe there's also nothing wrong with shutting the door and calling the police.
(As a vaguely related, personal aside, I do find the No Lying Ever part of the Categorical Imperative one of the hardest parts to consistently follow. I think I do a good job most of the time, but sometimes, those white lies do creep in :S ... The real world is tricky like that haha.)
Gay sex is in itself not a limitation. Only gay sex would be a limitation which I assume is what you meant.
Gay people limit themselves to only gay sex because they are not attracted to the opposite sex. The contrapositive to your argument would therefore be, that it is our moral obligation to fuck people we don't find attractive for the sake of reproduction if we cannot find people we find attractive to do so. If everyone did this (yes your logic implies that everyone should have kids) and countless families get created with parents who don't love each other - do you really think the world would be better off than if we let people choose whether they want to reproduce or not?
No, I donโt think that at all. We were discussing Kantโs view and my classmates on the whole agreed with the premise. We were then asked to try and come up with arguments against it. I posed this because I knew it would make everyone else uncomfortable. Not because I base my morality on Kant and I donโt like gay sex.
Well thereโs no argument for universal morality that really holds. I backed the Kant people into a corner. You took my example, flipped it around, and still backed the Kant people into a corner.
For what it's worth (OP here again), I also agree that no system of universal morality can really hold IRL. I do however find the Categorical Imperative to be the one which seems best suited for me figuring out almost all ethically tricky issues IRL, so in that sense that's the reason I like it the most.
I don't really know much about all the CI scenarios. Is sitting in front of my PC morally wrong because if everyone did it, we would all die since the room is too small? Well no, I'm pretty sure that's not what Kant had in mind.
But back to the gay example. Being gay is not a choice, and therefore not a moral choice. I don't think the CI applies to things we don't choose. Is it immoral to be male because in a world of just males, the species could not reproduce? We can talk about the morality of the active choice to never have kids (by people who otherwise could). Maybe that would be immoral according to the CI. I'm sure that would be something many more people could agree on.
I was thinking something similar but with picking flowers. Life would collapse of all flowers evetywhere were picked and killed off, but really is there anything wrong woth picking a single flower?
That seems too black and white to be practical. Is it okay to flirt if you have an SO? Depending on your situation, maybe. I'm in a polyamorous relationship, so it's totally okay for me and my SO both.
Lying, then. I used to be a priest. I had a legal requirement to act, speak and testify as confessions never happened. I had to lie, and I think it was the only right thing to do. But on other circumstances (like testifying about any other thing), lying would be strong.
Every decision happens on unique circumstances, and those heavily affect the morality. But since all the circumstances are unique, it is meaningless to ask of it would work as an universal law, since those specific factors will never happen again.
Also - I might say that X is wrong on every instance I can imagine. Yet I cannot say there is no instance it would be the moral choice, so I cannot say it's an universal truth. Consider an madman kidnapping you and your three children, and saying that of you don't kill one of them, he will kill you all. Is it still wrong? What of the threat is instead to detonate a stolen nuke on NY? Is it still the lesser evil?
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but that's a very different case. What you're really looking at is if it's okay for everyone in the world to flirt, kiss, etc. with their own significant other. I'd certainly hope such a world is acceptable to you!
If I'm just misunderstanding your sarcasm, then, well, carry on ๐
Gargusm5 ยท 2266 points ยท Posted at 17:18:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are each asked to build a pen to hold sheep, using as little material as possible.
The engineer starts by counting the sheep and determining how close they get to each other. He integrates over the area and builds a circular pen just big enough to hold them all.
The physicist starts with a large loop of fence around the entire flock, then contracts it whenever there's some open space.
The mathematician builds a fence around himself and declares that he's outside.
A physicist, a mathematician, and an engineer are asked to determine the volume of a small red ball.
The physicist submerges it in water and uses the displacement and Archimedes' Principle to determine the volume.
The mathematician measures the diameter and takes the double integral to find the volume.
The engineer starts flipping through all of his books, then finally throws his hands up in the air. "Does anyone have a green-to-red conversion table? I can only find a green ball volume table."
Virulan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:38:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One way to define "wearing a shirt" is by saying that if the inside of the shirt faces you, you're wearing it. If you wear a shirt inside out and continue to define the inside of the shirt as the inside instead of saying it's now the outside, then since the entire universe is facing your shirt, the entire universe is wearing your shirt, and you are the only one not wearing it.
If I understand correctly, it's that basically a boat and a bathtub have pretty much the same shape, BUT when it comes to bathtubs the water is on the inside whereas for boats it's on the outside.
Wait. What if you were in a bathtub that had some water in it, but that was also floating in the ocean? That would make it a boat...but it's already a reverse boat, so that cancels out...WHAT IS IT THEN?!
It's a thought experiment based on a multiverse theory. In that if you pointed a gun to your head and pulled the trigger, your consciousness would persist in the universes where the gun jammed, therefore making everyone immortal inside their own consciousness.
Something that always bugs me about this theory is, what happens when you get old? Do you just continue on your life as the longest living person ever?
Thatโs the only part that doesnโt really get explained. But I donโt see how it could be explained any other way, unless thereโs some universal limit to human longevity.
And it comes down to the "blueprint" of our body gets messed up overtime and our rebuilding is worse and worse. Dude just copy it somewhere before any damage has been done to it, restore the original storage with that cool cell regen thing we all have and then restore the copy and so on.
Because it's evolutionary advantageous to the species for us to have a lifespan limited to this length.
You live long enough to pass on your genes - done. You also live long enough to give knowledge to your offspring? Brilliant, may as well live a little longer.
And over years this time to confer knowledge sloooowly extended to the point where we are now, post child-having age. Our primary reason for our longevity is our brains. Evolution works on crazy long timescales.
The only possible time for you to come into existence was today, because these longevity extension breakthroughs are right around the corner and will keep you immortal.
campex ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:24:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
YES! Exactly! I've been trying to explain this to people and they just don't get it
orIexplaineditallwrongmorelikely
I think this could be interpreted as people who came before the advent of immortality weren't actually conscious. Though I guess it could have been invented arbitrarily far in the past of other universes... What about the very first human, who couldn't possibly invent it?
I mean, technically it is. But a lot of forms of damage are a natural consequence of basic life functions, such as cell division and metabolic processes, so there is a very hard limit on human longevity until we work out a lot of things.
Age is not "just accumulation of damage" otherwise the guy that never leaves his bed would live a very long time. The reality is the guy in bed would probably die early.
What? The reason the person that stays in bed dies quicker is because they accumulate more damage.
jr07si ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 22:26:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My thought is the timeline you happen to occupy is the one where something is discovered that keeps you immortal, whether consiousness is transferred by technology, or medical science somehow is discovered to let you live forever. Even thousands of years ago, the timeline someone was on happen to be the one where antibiotics were discovered earlier saving their life, or somehow a specific virus was introduced into the population that eradicated cancer, or alien nanobots showed up and made repairs to everyone. Those people just continued on a different track, while on our track they died.
nezrock ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:31:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying all I have to do to live forever is blow my brains out? BRB.
Ok... Lets just say that there is a probable universe that 50 years from now allows an individual to injest nannites. These little bots then convert your neurons into artificial neurons...one at a time. After a few months a soft chime is heard and the scent of sandalwood fills the air.
This was the alarm you chose to notify you when your mind is digital.
You have preserved continuity and now have functional immortality.
You can lay in your armor coffin, plug in and live in a simulation with a dilated time ratio of one year to one minute. Or one hundred years to one minute.
As you age you keep getting lucky...you are always the man on the stage and not the one drowning in the box (The Prestige).
Until you "arrive" in the universe that offers you "immortality."
But entropy will win. Perhaps each observer has a different tolerance for novelty. Over time things will get fuzzy...a slow haze. Then oblivion.
Take this with a grain of salt. I'm just an outside salesperson from California. Just have found this fascinating my entire life. Check out "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch.
I suspect at some point the continuation of your linear timeline becomes so improbable it will be more likely you will retain a continuous narrative but shift to a seemingly bizarre alternate timeline. Perhaps one where you are younger, or one where the appropriate technologies have been invented. Improbable, but given infinity and the fact one of those improbable timelines needs to be picked...
When you die of old age your consciousness shifts to a doctor waking you up and saying, "We've cured and reversed aging! Here's a human-trial test shot!"
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:28:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If it's just probability, then everyone 'lives until they die of old age.'
Alternately. The reason why you're alive right now is because you're actually in an educational simulation to make you wise before starting your real life.
Alternately. The reason you're alive now is because by the time you would've deteriorated from old age, it'll be possible to revert it with genetic therapy, and you're actually on track to live forever.
Daefish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:27:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wouldn't it be possible that there are multiverses where age and longevity are almost limitless? i.e. for every time I die in a car crash across the multiverse, another me is living longer and longer because of the decisions of not only that multiverse's me but also possibly other people within that multiverse.
I would say you live to the oldest age that any of your multiple selves reach. So if you die of a heart attack, you jump to a universe where your heart is fine. But eventually all of you will die. You would just be the last one. Think of it as your ultimate timeline. You're not actually immortal, you just live as long as it is possible for you to live.
EvMARS ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:00:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd recommend the book Anathem, which discusses these topics in more depth. There's a class of people who are seemingly able to direct their current consciousness down a particular path of quantum events to arrive at the desired results, such as extended life, with plenty of wibbly wobbly timey wimey thrown in. It's an interesting concept of a book.
CorvoLP ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:30:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
there was a Doctor Who novel with the fourth doctor called festival of death or something and there was an alien species that would relive their lives every time they died. basically their consciousness would travel back in time with all their memories, and they would do it over again, trying to live the "perfect" life
You die at a very old age. Not necessarily the oldest ever. Human's can't live forever, at some point there's no branch in the quantum tree that leads to you taking another breath
Not true, quantum tunneling and random movements can accomplish a lot, heck, it can even manifest a boltzmann brain (granted this is extremely rare in the tree, but compared to the 0% chance of you experiencing being properly dead).
Ghotay ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:53:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your consciousness would continue to exist in the universe where medical science and technology advance fast enough to make you effectively immortal
Even for the very old, is there a fundamental reason they donโt live 1-second longer? If not, then there is a universe where they live for that extra second. Repeat this logic.
The theory is that all consciousness is immortal in this way, not just that of the Worldโs oldest person.
Anything that is possible exists somewhere in the multiverse, therefore you would persist as long as it is within the laws physics for you to survive with your consciousness intact (because the thought experiment depends on consciousness, not a heartbeat). So you would live a long time then be rescued by some unlikely biotech being discovered (or delivered by aliens).
Assuming that you are currently living your shortest life, and you consciousness pops into the next shortest, and the next and the next as you die, you would theoretically reach an age where the human body just cant go on living any longer, and your next consciousness is only a second more, leaving you infinitely experiencing death over and over again at the speed of light. ...fuck.
Your conscious would continue on to the universe where you didnโt die at that moment, but to your โoriginalโ universe, youโd be dead. So from your view, youโd be alive forever, but from everyone elseโs view, youโre dead.
You don't "switch" universes. You just are only aware when you're alive, so this is a timeline where you are alive.
You will live until it is mathematically impossible for you to live. Of course, the likelihood of you living to an absurdly improbably age in the same timeline as someone else who reaches an equally improbably age is close to nil, so everyone will be the oldest person ever.
Because you won't experience a timeline where you die.
As long as there's a non-zero chance of you living, you will live. And considering the stuff I've been through, I'm inclined to believe it. I'm honestly just lucky I'm not permanently crippled.
It's just a thought experiment, I don't think anything like that really happens.
But if I had to write a sci-fi explanation for it, I'd say anything possible to happen would happen, no matter how unlikely, in every universe, so there are universes in which you die, universes in which you live until the heat death, and everything in between.
When you get old, maybe you get saved by an alien race, or you live just enough for humanity to achieve negligible senescence, or anything like that.
I don't know if it's even possible in infinite universes for a person to live to the heat death of the universe.
In infinite universes, there wouldn't be a universe where 1+1=3 or where time goes backwards. A universe where someone lives forever could be just as impossible as one where a person can literall make stars in the sky by opening bottles of coke. We don't know the limits of possibility in that regard.
My take on it is that in your "quantum immortality" you would eventually 'jump' to a universe in where one day you wake up to a ridiculous breakthrough that reverses aging and you have it administered right away.
It's far-fetched... but then again so is the entire theory.
Maybe when your last living physical form in all possible universes dies you level up?
tededit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:21:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you look into it, there have always been rumors or stories about things that could make someone immortal or extend life (the fountain of youth, alchemy, etc). So whatever that life extending thing was is what you end up getting ahold of, and thus making sense to you as to why you are living longer than anyone else. You continue to live into immortality in your universe, and it would make sense to you.
You would only experience a universe where immortality is achieved through technological means. To you it would seem like from the moment you were born, technological advances would increase exponentially... Oh wait...
Unless there is a universe that is a perfect 1:1 copy of this one, with the exception that it started 50 years later than ours, so you'd just end up experiencing yourself at a young age.
What happens is you suffer a heart attack/whatever organ failure kills people, and then your brain has all the particles quantum tunnel/jump around in just the right way to keep you conscious as the rest of your body fails, and then you're barely conscious forever, as there are far more worlds/branches where the stars particles align and you are barely conscious then it does to keep your whole body functioning as a super old person.
The actual result of the quantum suicide gun would be a 50/50 chance of either the gun jamming, or the gun firing and leaving you immortal as your brain keeps your mind just barely conscious and aware of yourself.
This is pretty unsettling, but luckily "minimal consciousness" also means many of your mental faculties will be at their lowest, including your senses, so you won't be able to feel pain probably, or any other emotion, so that's a plus.
I have never put a gun to my head, but I have survived something in that realm. This scenario of possibility has passed through my head countless times. What if I didnโt actually survive...?
Wow, glad the gun jammed... Story time? If you're okay with it?
[deleted] ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 01:37:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was 17. About 2 months prior, I saw my best friend die in a car accident.
I already had depression and after that trauma, I came to a breaking point.
My mom's boyfriend at the time was really into guns. One night, while they were staying at his place, I found his 9mm and went out back and into the high brush(we lived in the country), put the gun up to my temple, and pulled the trigger.
It jammed.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 01:40:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn man sorry for asking but it intrigues me so much. What emotions were you feeling when the gun jammed? What's the first thing you thought
[deleted] ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 01:47:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember a chill running down my spine. My first thought was just pure confusion.
Then I tried to fix the gun to no avail.
A strange mix of sadness, confusion, and disappointment.
[deleted] ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 02:11:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn I know you were suicidal, but I thought that there would be a natural sense of relief, even If it's only instinctual
I read a short story about this concept. A scientist proves that at every single decision point, even at a quantum level, two universes spin off, one for each possible decision. Then he invents a device that lets him travel to a carefully chosen universe that meets his criteria. "One where I'm wealthy", "one where a supermodel is in love with me". And he tries to boast about the amazing power of his little omnipotence machine...
But when he uses it, people say "of course you're wealthy, you won a lottery scratchoff. There's nothing weird there, somebody wins every day." Or "of course that supermodel loves you. you romantically courted her, and you're rich, and you take care of her. it's just a relationship, nothing that weird about her being out of your league." So then he lets other people try the device - and although it works from their point of view, sending them to a new universe, it doesn't do anything at all in the universe they leave behind, which now contains a disappointed quantum duplicate person, including the machine.
The scientist tries to convince people his device really worked, but as soon as he loses possession of it, he's unable to keep avoiding consequences, and winds up committed to an expensive private mental institution by his truly loving wife who only wants to see him get better. The doctors destroy his machine since it's the focus of his psychosis. His wife keeps his committal secret because she genuinely doesn't want his reputation to suffer. And since he's too not a good liar, he can't convince his doctors that he's recovered from his delusions, or convince them that he won't immediately invest a fortune into building a new device... he spends the rest of his sad life in the loony bin.
Towerss ยท 96 points ยท Posted at 20:27:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Seems to me like the scientist should have seen that coming
The video game SOMA plays with a similar concept, that your entire consciousness can be copied and pasted in computers, or uploaded to robots. Except the key here is copy and paste, not cut and paste. So there are points in the game where the only way to progress is to upload your current consciousness to something new, be it a new, sturdier body or a means of surviving an otherwise physical death. But the "original," the one from which the copy was made, they're still alive and cognizant of their situation.
So the main character is a little slow to the draw, and doesn't fully grasp this. So when you copy your consciousness to a new robot, the game's perspective switches over to the new robot. Who is functionally the same person you've always been, just a new body. But then you see your old body and realize thatyouare still in there too, probably about to die or dying because of whatever circumstance made you jump bodies.
It's this crazy trip that sounds like the story you're telling. From the perspective of the "new" you, it worked. But there's still a version of you that it technically didn't work for.
There's a story called "The Forest of Time" where a guy invents a similar machine and goes to a different timeline, but gets thrown in jail because they think he's a spy. The longer he is in jail the more "lost in time" he gets and eventually it becomes impossible for him to find his reality again. Worth a read, since I probably got a lot wrong because I read it so long ago.
I don't understand why he would want to share that information. I think about alternate universes way too often. I find the idea that in some universes I have won the lottery, or am a world famous musician or a doctor or something and in others I have been in horrible life changing accidents, or am in jail absolutely fascinating. If it were possible to move between these universes I can't say I wouldn't do it, but I would not draw any attention to that fact.
I don't understand why he would want to share that information
because it's a lot harder to write 3-dimensional characters who only make logical decisions. :-) Or maybe, as a scientist, the thing he desired more than wealth and women was legitimate acknowledgement of his greatest discovery? I agree, it was a stupid move, but the short story had to get somewhere in a maximum number of pages, so I think the author just cheated a little.
Then he should have gone to a universe where people were open minded about these sort of things! I understand that storytelling is dull without conflict and I would definitely enjoy this story.
You know somebody on Reddit actually killed themselves since they were so distressed from this topic. I forget the username but I think it was more mental illness than the actual topic that killed them.
Oshojabe ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 22:53:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The daughter of the creator of multiverse theory killed herself in the hopes that she would end up in a world where her father was alive.
I've known a couple of people and have been through it personally where a certain ideology kind of puts you into a continual state of unease. Existentialism, where there is kind of no point, is an example of this. People get their kicks out of having some kind of value. When there is no point, there is no value, there is no real reason for life.
Holden Caulfield in the Catcher in the Rye. Kind of a well known book for a reason. At one point in your life you'll identify with him. At one point in your life you think he's just an angsty teen.
The message of the book is basically to let things go. Don't act like every little thing has to carry so much weight. Let things be and work on what gives you your little pleasures. Gotta find your own state of happiness and let the universe move around you rather than trying to move the universe I guess.
The fact that there is no defined point to life is awesome - it means you get to choose the meaning! For some people it's just finding happiness, for others it's learning, and for others it's helping people. Usually it's a combination of things. Stop looking for the meaning of life and stay deciding what it is for you
The thing is a lot of people can't find enjoyment in anything knowing it's all for nothing, they are basically extremely bored and uninterested and depressed all the time.
If you're looking for meaning in that way, then you have to recognise that, in the scale of the universe, there simply is no meaning.
But, on the human scale, actions can definitely have a great meaning and impact. Sure, if I give a coffee to that homeless person, it won't stop the heat death of the universe, but it will make a homeless person a little warmer and happier. It may not matter to the universe, but it matters to them, and to me.
Recognise that relative experience, and embrace it.
Depends. I place value on the idea of learning more about the world around me, and feeling lucky that there's a slim chance that in this century life extension will make it so I don't have to die at all. But really besides the obvious options of ignoring it, choosing a religion, and suicide, you have to find things you value (for me, its STEM, slim hopes on technology and other people) and stick to that. It may seem tough but humans are really good at adapting.
When I was finishing school while working I had a philosophy class of some sort I needed to go to. My boss said something to me like "Oh philosophy, be careful with that. Sometimes you start thinking and you can't stop yourself from thinking and you get stuck and then just have to kill yourself."
A new account that was pretty much identical to the quantum immortality one, but with an obsession of some other philosophical concept instead, was created pretty much immediately after the original one's 'suicide', though. That seems suspicious to me.
This trips me up big time. Like whoa, I could live forever and see everyone die, but everyone else also lives forever in their subjective experience and sees me die. So, the body I'm "in" right now will die, I will die, but I can only experience myself living, not death. If the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then the version of me that lives forever is out there somewhere, but it's not "me", but I will experience it, so I am that, but I'm also typing this comment and thinking all this in many other universes and I can't always be right.
The more I follow the logic through, the more tripped up I get. I seriously hope I don't turn out that guy who was driven insane by this, posted on r/askphilosophy, and possibly committed suicide. Except he survives from his own perspective, or just dies and is none the wiser.
I just push this out of my head when I see it, as I will right now as it close to midnight where I am right now. It is just way too trippy and I will go insane lol
Your consciousness will be around for as long as will be around, so just enjoy life and donโt go putting sci fi thought experiments to the test for the love of god.
Xudda ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:23:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sometimes I wonder.
If we live a universe that has no beginning or end--say that the "existence" of this universe is eternal--and it consists of a finite amount of energy and configurations, does that mean that we will live the same life over and over and over again for eternity after so many years once the universe ends up in the same "configuration", so to speak?
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:04:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your existance in this multiverse idea is a lot like Gabriel's Horn. It goes off to infinity, but it only has finite volume. So you could "exist" in some number of universes, but that number as a fraction of the total universes is decreasing quickly. Perhaps like Zeno's Paradox, you'll eventually reach the unreachable point (of total death).
Anyways, consciousness is not binary. You'd get Alzheimers/dementia and fuzz out of consciousness in all universes even if this theory held water.
I feel like this would be easy to test. Take a gun and shoot yourself. If you experience that you live then the theory is right.
Then take a moment to feel bad for your friends and family left behind in the old universe.
Then just repeat hundreds of more times and eventually you'll be in a universe where 100 different guns have failed to kill you 100 different times in 100 different ways. Record the whole thing and make a documentary.
I honestly hope there is no after life or any sort of conscious immortality. It doesn't even make sense to think of consciousness without a brain. Everything you think is a result of your brains experiences, structure, and chemistry. If I remembered everything from a previous life that would be a problem. I have often thought that it would be bizzare to not have consciousness. I don't know what happened before I was born, but perhaps I have been conscious the whole time, in a different body. But realistically I know that my thoughts come from my physicality. So a disembodied consciousness is out of the picture. And there would be no difference between existing and not existing after death since you wouldn't remember any of it. Still cool to think about though. I remember watching pseudo science docs about consciousness being an ocean-- all connected, and the experience of consciousness is a crest in the waves.
This is crazy because when I was a kid I used to think that maybe our consciousness will continue somewhere else and I would never know I actually that I had died , this was before I learnt about multiverse and stuff.
Another mind blowing aspect of this, is that the hypothesis is testable. AND if itโs true, everyone who has ever committed suicide has tested it. AND everyone who has ever committed suicide failed to die (from their perspective).
This is not quite accurate. Quantum Immortality theorizes that even if your consciousness dies in this timeline there will always be another timeline where your consciousness continues to persist. Quantum Immortality does not theorize that information is transferred between different timelines. So itโs possible that, even if Quantum Immortality is true, your consciousness in other timelines will remain unaware of its termination in this timeline.
I didnโt say there was an awareness of termination. I said there was an awareness of a failed suicide attempt. The memory would be of a gun jamming, etc.
And if a scientist was testing the theory, several hundred successive failed attempts would be consistent with the theory to a ridiculously high probability.
Nope. I suspect you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the overall concept. No information need travel between timelines for what I have described.
I said there was an awareness of a failed suicide attempt. The memory would be of a gun jamming, etc.
Once again this does not fall under Quantum Immortality. Memories of failed attempts cannot be remembered unless information is transmitted between timelines. Quantum Immortality is fundamentally untestable unless information is transmitted between timelines.
Thereโs no need for information to travel between universes for this idea to work.
If the subject shoots himself in the head he will die in all the universes where the gun doesnโt jam. In the universe where the gun jams, he simply lives on with the memory of the gun jamming. He can point the gun away and shoot it to see that itโs still functional, then point it back at his head and shoot again. Once again, he will die in all the universes where the gun doesnโt jam. But his conscious will continue, (self-contained and uncontaminated) in a universe where the gun jammed (again). He can repeat this ad nauseam, because the nature of infinity and probability is such that there will always be a universe in which he is saved from death by some unlikely event.
As you can see, no information in this thought experiment was transferred at any time between universes.
Not necessarily. Itโs possible that you were locked into causal loop on a single timeline, due to time travel, and therefore only actions that do not break said causality will occur. The survivors would still need to communicate information between timelines to truly test Quantum Immortality. Everything else ultimately devolves into speculation.
Lack of a proper rebuttal doesnโt justify the use of ad hominem. Please structure a adequate rebuttal if you believe your ideas can withstand serious philosophical debate.
For example, if a scientist attempts suicide to test the quantum immortality hypothesis, and takes a powerful handgun and shoots himself in the head. If the gun jams in one out of a hundred universes, his consciousness will continue in those, and terminate in the other 99%. He could repeat the experiment over and over, and because in a very small fraction of universes the gun will continue to jam, his conscious will continue. No information need travel between universes.
There was this one time I went swimming in a lake that was behind a friend's house around sophomore year of high school. Halfway out I started to get a cramp and thought I might drown. But somehow through steady breathing, laying on my back and paddling with one arm as the other felt numb, it felt like it wasnt me that was saving me. It was as if the universe was like "alright fuckhead this isn't how it's supposed to happen"
Anyone remember the guy who got so caught up in this theory and his reddit account is him slowly getting more and more paranoid about it and then his last post is him saying he's gonna kill himself?
Except consciousness isn't real and what we mistake as consciousness (cognition) is highly localized. Even an exact carbon copy of you standing next to you won't share the same "consciousness", let alone those in other universes.
Even if there are an infinite possible universe it does not necessarily entail that all possibilities occur. For example, letโs say your relationship to the universe can be represent by a simple equation x2 = y, where x is the state of the universe and y is your resultant state. Even though the possible states of the universe are infinite and span all possible real values there is no state of the universe which results in your state being negative.
Didnโt some dude kill himself cause of this on reddit? I found his account a while ago but cant remember the name of it and he became very troubled over it and kept talking about suicide cause he was so mind boggled
What happens if you die of heart disease or something, and in the universe where you don't, your life was drastically different for a while? Do you go back to where the split was to re-live everything? Do you never get to experience what it's like to do things when you aren't going to die of heart disease in a couple years, and only the memories?
If you like thinking about that stuff then you should read Permutation City by Greg Egan. The main premise of the book is that your consciousness is information, and that if it's terminated in one place or time (you die), then your consciousness seamlessly moves to another place and time. It's an incredible book.. Especially the second half.
PROOFxx ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:06:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Came up with this concept on my own before realizing it was actually a thing.
The only problem I see is that even though your mind would persist across the path where you survive, there's nothing to prevent you from getting stuck on a path where your mind is intact but where you're seriously maimed as a result of your actions. So, let's say you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger. There's an infinite number of universes where you're dead, an infinite number of universes where the gun jams, but also an infinite number of universes where the gun fires and leaves you paralyzed from the waist down with your consciousness intact.
I struck upon the reddit-thread where a guy killed himself over this thought experiment.
It's sooo bizare, yet it seems plausible.
It's very interesting to think about, especially given the multiverse theory basically says that for each given event, all possible outcomes will split into it's own universe. Try to do the math on that for each action you do....
The theory is that if you got into a car crash that could kill you, you will always experience the reality where you survived. The only way to actually die in this scenario is old age, which isn't explained.
It can be explained thusly....time of birth is subject to the same rules as cause of death. Meaning over the multiverae you are being born and dying eternally
So does this mean that my consciousness persists over an infinite number of universes, shrinking by a small fraction every time I die in one of them? That seems hard to argue
Quantum Mechanics teaches us that there are infinite possibilities for universes in existence. So based on the multiverse theory it is entirely plausible that the there is a version of the universe where the moon is larger than Saturn. There is also a plausible universe where Saturn is larger that the moon. Following this logic, it is also possible, if not probable, that there is a universe in which my penis is the largest object in existence.
That universe being the one in which you and I reside.
As someone else said how the universe came out of 'nothing' and what also blows my mind is what's beyond the border of space. If it has an end, how does it keep expanding into nothing? If one could go faster than it can expend(I know you never can), what would be there if you pass the border?
Why not? I'm genuinely asking since I don't know anything in this area.
gavmo ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 03:13:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Basically, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light (I think the universe also theoretically has no physical speed limit), but nothing can travel faster than light, so therefore we will never be able to travel fast enough to reach outside the universe.
So I donโt expect you to know the answer to this but for some reason, even tho Iโve read this before and never questioned it, it suddenly really bothers me that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light yet at the same time, the universe is doing just that. How?
The theoretical speed limit inside the universe is the speed of light in a vacuum, which comes from special relativity, it was set as a solution to some problems in astronomy in the early part of the 20th century, most of our understanding of cosmology and astrophysics comes from it, and so far no experiment has shown otherwise. There are many theories predicting faster than light particles, however no significant evidence has been found. Outside of the universe talking about speed doesn't really make sense, theres no time or distance to measure it there. Our understanding of physics is limited to inside our universe and we cannot travel outside it to find out. We can measure the expansion rate of the visible universe though, which is Hubble's constant and gives a rate of about 67km per second per million parsecs.
gavmo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:42:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
well I'm pretty sure the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, as for how fast it's actually moving I'm not sure
I'll give this a go, though I warn you that my understanding of GR is somewhat undergrad.
What does it mean to "travel"? It seems obvious that what we intuitively mean by "travel" is described in the formal mathematical language of physics as motion of an object within space: activity which will make an object appear at a different point in space at a different time. With this interpretation, it is impossible for an object to "travel" faster than light.
In the world of our intuitions, this is the only way in which two objects can increase their separation. However, the formalism of physics provides us with another means: in addition to objects travelling in the spacetime, the spacetime itself can change, adding space between the objects in a manner which seems to carry the objects along. Intuitively this seems to bear a strong resemblance to the "travelling" I've just described - the objects are getting progressively further and further apart, after all. But think about how we would describe it within the mathematical language of physics. The spacetime cannot be "moving", as "motion" can only be described relative to the spacetime itself. We find that two phenomena which appear almost identical to our intuitions, and indeed to our eyes - that of two objects getting further and further apart over time - are attributable to two entirely different physical processes which we would have to describe entirely differently in any mathematical description of the situation. And in only one of these two processes is there such a thing as a "maximum speed" (strictly speaking, in only one of these two processes is there such a thing as a "speed").
The question, I think, cuts to the heart of a very interesting issue about how we relate our physical intuitions to the concepts used within physics. General Relativity supplies us with conclusions which strike our intuitions like flat-out self-contradictions: that two objects can get further apart without moving, for instance. Really, I think, this is an issue of translation: our concepts, and the words that denote them such as "position" and "motion" and "speed" and "space", are not designed for use in curved space-times. Physicists will still use these words, but they have actually carefully redefined them all with the aid of laborious mathematical derivation from the General Relativistic equations. And it is not clear that they mean the same thing at all when used in that context to what they mean when used by us in our everyday lives. And the phrase "nothing can travel faster than light" is true only when all those words are defined in the formal language of General Relativity, not when they're defined in the language of our everyday intuition.
Until we perhaps reach a point we we're technologically so advanced we can surpass the laws or the universe or change them. Then we'll have to fear for our existence though.
Faster than light travel is possible - but not in local space. Nothing can physically move faster than light, and you will never experience anything passing by you faster than light.
The acceleration of the universe is space expanding everywhere in every direction - this means that in our local space, we are not moving or experiencing anything that is faster than light. General Relativity explains this.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:50:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because even the smartest people in the world dont realize that nothing is actually just nothing.
Well, the universe is infinite as far we know and if somethingโs infinite it doesnโt have to expand into something else, it can just expand into itself.
Itโs annoyingly counter-intuitive but it kind of makes sense if you think about it
Okay, but what if the universe is finite, but boundless? Much like the surface area of a sphere has no bounds and no center, our universe might exist in far more than the 3 spatial dimensions we are capable of perceiving. Perhaps a "straight line" is really curved along a fourth dimension that loops back around, and if we traveled in a straight line through the universe for billions of years, we would eventually return to our present location.
I definitely think thatโs also plausible. Personally I think what limits us being able to make a definitive statement is our lack of knowledge of physics. Perhaps weโll never know though, we could literally be limited by the laws of physics as to how much we can actually find out.
There is no border. The universe is flat and infinite, space is expanding. That means that things that aren't bound together like atoms (via the strong and electromagnetic forces) and galaxy clusters (via gravity) are getting further away from each other.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:41:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When we say flat, we mean when spacetime is scaled back by one dimension. A flat universe would be a 3-dimensional slice of 4-dimensional spacetime, representing the universe at a particular time. Humans can only visualise this as a 2-dimensional slice of our 3-dimensional world.
Sort of, we mean when you take a slice of spacetime at a particular time and end up with a 3-dimensional plane. Humans have a hard time visualising this so we scale it back a dimension: a 2-dimensional slice of our 3-dimensional world.
If the universe had positive curvature (not flat) it would be the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional sphere, which when scaled back again is where the balloon analogy that everyone uses comes from.
We mean "without large scale average curvature". Saying exactly what that means is hard without messing around with a lot of maths, but roughly it means that any sufficiently large triangle has angles that add up to approximately (for a precise definition of "approximately") 180 degrees (so like triangles drawn on a piece of paper, rather than ones drawn on a sphere, where the angles can be much bigger). Interestingly, because of general relativity, you need to go to really big triangles before this starts working: there are explicit triangles that you can draw inside our galaxy that don't have angles that add up to 180 degrees (this is because the gravity of stars, planets, and black holes bends space around them).
Most cosmologists believe that space has infinite extension, because we're pretty sure it's flat and without boundary. If it's spherical however then you're correct, it would be finite.
Space isnโt expanding into anything (according to current theory) but space itself is expanding into itself. The best example I can think of is the mathematical concept of infinity. Infinity + 1 is still infinity. Infinity + infinity is still infinity. There are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, but there is also an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 2, and by definition, the first is larger than the second, but added (or multiplied, etc) together, are still infinity.
Space as we understand it is infinite, and expanding, but isnโt expanding into anything, but is still infinite. Does that make sense? This is where relativity comes in. Itโs still fucken weird, but thatโs the concept.
Well. kinda and kinda not. So there is an infinite amount of numbers, meaning that space is infinite in that sense. But if you would look at infinite differently(something with no end). I know numbers can go on forever, but does space really go on forever, or is it just so immensly big that we call it infinite?
We have no idea. The edge observable universe is is the furthest away starting point that light can have, and still reach earth within the time frame of the universe existing (accounting for movement, acceleration of expansion, etc). To use it is effectively infinite, but thereโs a wall we canโt see past because if technological limitations and physics.
To put it a different way, itโs been observed that objects moving away from us are moving faster than they should be, and are accelerating. The answer to this is that not only is the object moving, the space between earth and the object is expanding.
Thereโs a 2 dimensional experiment for this. Draw point A and point B an inch apart on the surface of a deflated balloon, and then inflate it. The surface of the balloon between A and B represents our universe.
The way you explain it make sense now, how other people explained it to me it didn't at first. But if everything moves further from each other, that means the universe will 'snap' someday? Since you can only stretch things so far. Fun knowing that atoms will at one point fall apart.
And thatโs definitely a theory. Iโve heard the multiverse theory described as a boiling pot of water, with each bubble being a universe popping in and out of existence.
There isn't a great one; the idea is that objects (the surface of the balloon) can exist and expand without needing to be in or refer to an external space (our 3D world). Here's my take on it:
Imagine instead of a balloon you live in a 1D world which loops back on itself (the circumference of a circle). Every day you travel between your house (point A) and your... vacation house (point B) at the speed of light, which you know is the maximum possible speed. Over the years, you notice it takes you longer and longer to get to work despite traveling at a constant speed (in this 1D universe, you are a superstar physicist as well), so you deduce that the universe is expanding: the distance is literally getting larger!
How might we describe this? Well, one way we can do this is by "embedding" your 1D world into the 2D plane: we assign every point in the world to some coordinates in the 2D plane and note that it makes a circle with some "growing" radius. We could just as well make it a "spinning" circle in 3D space (with the axis of rotation going through a diameter of the circle) and assign some coordinates, or put even put your 1D world on the surface of a (growing) sphere. Ask an observer in each of these scenarios (the 2D world, the 3D world, and the spherical surface world) and they'll claim the circle is expanding into different things (the 2D person will claim its expanding into their plane, the 3D person will claim its expanding in space, and the sphere-person will say its just sitting on the sphere doing nothing!). All while you in your 1D world are busy going back and forth between A and B without worrying about who is right.
The point here is that the 1D world exists and expands independently of its embedding in the 2D, 3D, or spherical-surface world. There isn't a "thing" it needs to be expanding into; the expansion is simply an expression that the distances inside the 1D world are getting larger (thanks to the fixed speed of light). This is analogous to what's going on in our universe: it doesn't need to expand into higher-dimensional space in order for distances to grow; it exists independently.
This one isn't an analogy so much as it's the actual explanation: we're used to thinking of object as being embedded in some larger ambient space, usually Euclidean space, because the particular bit of the universe that we happen to live in happens to look roughly like a bit of Euclidean space, so the objects that we normally see are all embedded in such a space. But there's no need for that in general: a maniforld (by which we mean "something that happens to look mostly like Euclidean space if you only look at a little bit of it at a time") doesn't need to be embedded in anything: you can have one that isn't inside anything else at all, it's just its own thing.
For the expansion thing, it might help to not think of it as expansion per se: you can equivalently think of it as the definition of "distance" getting smaller, so that things are more distance apart.
Kevl17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:41:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The 2D surface is exapanding because the balloon exists in a 3D space. If you imagine the 3D universe actually exists in a 4D state, then our perception of the 3D part expanding into itself is because of a 4th dimension we cannot perceive.
There has to be room around the balloon for it to be able to expand further. What would be on the other side if you were able to go through the surface of the ballloon?
humodx ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:08:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe would be the surface itself, moving away or towards the center of the balloon would be like walking in the 4th dimension
That's only because you're considering the embedding of the balloon into real space. The answer to your final question is simple: there is no "other side".
Furthermore, if I recall correctly, going completely in one direction with no deviation, you will end up exactly where you started. I.e. if I launched a spaceship in one direction and I wasn't impeded or redirected by gravity, I would "eventually" end up at earth (not really, because our place in the Galaxy is constantly shifting, never mind the galaxy's own movement, but you get the idea).
Edit: I have no clue where I read the above, but here is a similar explanation
If this is true all the galaxies that are expanding away from each other right now will eventually meet up again and cause another sort of explosion, or maybe implosion?
Kevl17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:39:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No because the reason they are moving away from each other is because the universe is getting bigger. So as they move away, the point where they "loop back" is getting further away too
Isn't it like blowing bubbles in your milk with a straw? I thought I remember reading that somewhere. The universe just looks like our brains under a microscope.
martixy ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:33:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
dont think of it as a plain. Think of it as a baloon is inflating and ypu can only travel along the surface of the baloon. It will keep expanding with you on it, but if you move faater than it expands, than youll endup on the "other side" of the universe because the border and the end are nonexistent.
There is no border. Neither expanding nor being finite implies having borders.
rufi83 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:24:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why does the universe have to come from nothing? Furthermore, why does something have to have a starting point? Why can't the universe just ALWYS have been and will always be? No starting or end point necessary
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:49:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you went past the border there would probably be nothing.
Now imagine this equally valid model of the universe expanding. Its not getting bigger, but everything inside it is getting smaller in the same amount of space there always has been. We'd have no way of knowing the difference but it put such a weird new image in your mind.
Itโs not expanding into anything. As far as we know, as has been said below, the universe is infinite and the expansion is just points getting farther and farther apart.
Well ... some physicists used to think that on the largest scales, space-time was curved. Meaning if you traveled in a straight line long enough, you would eventually just wind up back where you started. In this universe, there would be no real "border". But the volume could still expand forever.
But that's pretty much been proven false at this point. On the largest scales, space time is pretty damned flat, it turns out.
The inability to picture how something can "expand into nothing" is a limitation that we have because of our difficulty in thinking beyond our 3 (or 4) dimentional lives. It's expanding into another dimension that we don't understand. Maybe it's the "5th" or "8th" dimension or whatever ... we just can't grasp it because we have a hard time picturing anything more than 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time.
Like the tesseract? Or however they call it. It's this cube scaped thing expanding in each other over and over to give a rough view of how seeing in more dimensions would be like.
The thing is it must be infinite then, infinite nothingness that is, which makes sense when you really think about it. Nothing is also only "something" to us because we have a word for it, or an idea of it.
Either way the rate it's expanding is infinite. If the universe has kept expanding this rapidly there are obviously no barriers preventing it from doing so.
I don't know if you can be "beyond" space as "beyond" is a way to place something IN space. I don't think that you would ever pass the "border" also, you may create space by your very presence.
aft2001 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:46:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Perhaps the universe is infinite, and the expansion of space is almost like space "spilling" into... nothingness. Much like spilled milk on a flat table flattens and matches the shape of the surface it's on.
The universe is not expanding, rather the space inside itself. Grab a balloon that is not inflated, and put dots all over it, now inflate it. There are the same amount of dots, and the balloon hasn't gained mass. The dots are just further away from each other.
Prondox ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:45:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are also cold spots in the universe. These spots are not actual cold as we interpret cold. They are void of matter. These spots in the universe don't have matter in them just like most of excistense. The matter that is our universe just expands and fills the nothingness.
It expands till it reaches the source wall, which is basically the prison of old gods and leviathans alike.
jonesg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:39:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It had to come from something. Matter can be neither be created or destroyed
Beattz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:16:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You'd think because for something to expand, something else must be able to contract (like, when you expand a balloon the air around it gets contracted, technically). If there's nothing to contract beyond the expansion of the universe then perhaps the universe contracts itself while it expands?
That's always hurt my brain. If there's literally the epitome of nothing after the edge of the universe then how is there anything for it to expand into? Unless it's some weird ass concept that we can't understand, like it's warping the definition of "expansion" to make room for more of itself?
If a balloon had even the tiniest amount of gas in it and you exposed it to a vacuum, it would expand to fill that void of nothing.. at least that's how I imagine the universe is filling out.
Itself. Nothing. There isn't anything outside it, and it has no border, as far as we can tell. Space itself, the thing that allows objects to be at different locations including inside and outside each other, is getting larger.
Presuming you pass the border, there would quite literally be nothing. In all likelihood, the instant you exited the universe, you would cease to exist, as you cannot exist if tehre is nowhere for you to exist in. Or, is one were to take a theist view, as God created the universe, it must be outside of it, abd therefore, once you exit the universe (presuming you survive and remain sane), you would either find God, another of its creations, or an inbetween point of its creations (e.g. between universes in the multiverse), or sone combination of these.
I watched some videos and there was an interesting topic talking about the Big Bang and God. How can we say that the Big Bang or God were a beginning? They must have came from something as well. We can't just say something came from nothing, that nothing must have came from something as well. Even if we get answers to the Big Bang and God, new questions arise. How did they came to be?
In the end, the Big Bang and God are a same thing. One is the reason we came to be without any morals and another is a reason we came to be but has a personality and morals.
It's really interesting haha. Because humanity follows this concept that there must be an end or some border, but we are divided by interpreting differently one same thing. It's crazy.
On the topic of God himself. I'm not religious but I do believe there is something more out there and there are laws that we don't understand and ever will. I have nothing against people who are religious and neither should anyone else, as long as they are good people who get some sort of reason off their faith.
But people who are extremists and kill for their faith... That's something else yes and fuck them.
Sure, just put an entire element of society in a โnutshellโ.
No, I donโt believe in God simply because the universe requires explanation. Honestly, the Christian belief is less that God explains the universe, and moreso that the universe explains God. This is exemplified in Romans 1.
Taking a scientific standpoint demands that you must leave room for the possibility of 'God'.
Kevl17 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:45:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No it doesn't. Because if it did you would have to leave room for the possibility of anything. Literally anything that any madman comes up with. Imagine trying to form a theory with this hanging over you. You'd have to design an experiment to test for literally any wild idea that could or does exist. Science wouldn't work.
Well let's test that. In the beginning, all matter and energy in the universe was contained in an infinitesimally small space called a singularity. Why?
Because a gargantuan cosmic entity that looks like a horse but sounds like a fish accidently stood on our universe.
Can this be disproved?
Kevl17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:44:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It cannot be disproved. Just as god cannot be disproved. Which is why it is useless and has nothing to do with science. This is why science cannot leave a possibility for god, because god as a concept is incompatible with science due to the fact it's not falsefiable and is no more valid than what you just said.
Modern science relies on the acceptance that we don't know everything. I'm just trying to say that no one has the right to deny the possibility of 'God' because we don't know enough about the entirety of existence. The human need to quantify through testing and falsifying can offer no credence when you do not know what it is you are testing!
I would say that science is the art of understanding, and there is much we may never understand. To be so proud to state 'There is no God' is defiance at best and ignorance at worst.
Kevl17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:00:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The scientific method relies on falsifiable hypotheses. God is not falsifiable. Therefore the idea of god is not something science can ever prove. It is irrelevant to science. And science does not have to accept the possibility anymore than the possibility of any other random idea anyone wants to come up with which is just as incompatible with science.
First I should clarify my definition of God, which is "The Uncreated Creator". I don't believe in the Christian God, Allah, or Jewish God, etc. He is what created everything. This means that before him nothing could exist to create him, therefore he is uncreated. Without a god it would be impossible for anything to exist. Everything has a cause. That cause is the effect of another cause, and so on. Eventually something had to be caused by a god, otherwise you have an endless chain. Some will say maybe the universe is infinite, to which I say "maybe", but a chandelier held up by endless chains in a room that is also endless and always 1 chain away from the chandelier will fall.
Milbso ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:56:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why can't the universe itself be the 'first cause'? If there can be an uncreated creator then why is it more reasonable to believe in a god than an uncreated universe?
It seems to me that to claim that the universe is just everything and came from nowhere makes equal sense (If not a little more sense) as to claim that the universe was made by a god which is just everything and came from nowhere.
I'm not pulling anything out of my arse. I read a great article which compared all the things in space and how it affects religion. And replying like that won't make your point any more valid. I'm not religious, I just said it's an interesting comparison. And honestly, I couldn't care less if someone believes in God. It's their choice. I'm fine with as long as you don't throw it in my face and tell me I should believe as well. I have many friends who are religious and amazing. :)
Okay but the universe is infinite. Therefore nothing can exist outside of it. Which would mean the universe cannot have a God that lives outside of it. For God to exist, they must live within the universe. So what did God stand on when the universe was being created?
A few comments higher I posted an interesting topic on the beginning. God and Big Bang are the same thing. On just has morals and personality stapled to it and another one doesn't.
Even if we get answers to them, new questions arise as to how they came to be and what's beyond that.
And just saying there was nothing before or there was something is stupid. We will never know. At least not us and many other generations after us. And do we really need to? We clearly have our part here on Earth to do.
Also, I'm not religious but I don't hate on people who are. If someone chooses to believe in God then why not? If it gives them strenght than so be it. But people who use religion as an excuse to be rude to others and kill others can go fuck themselves.
Itโs hard to believe thereโs not significant bias going on here, when he got downvotes for saying โitโs Godโ and got upvotes when he explained it wasnโt the God of the Bible or Koran.
Let me cut to the chase here. (And no hostility here, just discussion.)
We know the universe exists. We do not know God exists. God exists in theory, not science.
So the universe got here because either, A) it was always here or B) it was created. A is possible since we have proof of the universe, and our knowledge may one day prove this.
As for B)...you have no proof outside of your theories of God. Before you prove that God created this universe, you must prove he exists. But you are using he exists because he created the universe as your proof.Do you see how your logic is circular?
In order for logic to be circular, it needs to say A because of B and B because of a
A. I am not saying that God created the universe because he exists. I'm not against the idea of the universe always existing. This, under the definition I gave earlier, makes the universe God. I have no problem with saying that the universe itself is God. By the way, I appreciate the no hostility thing. A lot of people take this kind of debate the wrong way.
I think so. This is something I'm less sure of, but still think. It seems like everything is designed to work together. Some animals are perfect partners to work together, etc. This is really only saying that it's more likely than definitely though.
Ok I know that most of Reddit isnโt religious, but that โnothingโ is God, and you canโt disprove it. You have no answer for a question but then when an answer that makes sense is presented, you just blow it off because you donโt believe in it. I get if you arenโt religious, but you bash Christians etc. for believing in a God and then have no better answer yourself. Sure we canโt prove there is a God, but that is what faith is
I don't bash christians or any religion at all. I respect peoples belief. I however do not believe. You can't disporve there is a god, but you can't prove there is one either, therefore i am agnostic.
Yeah sorry that sounded like it was directed at you. What I mean is most of Reddit acts like Christians have unsupportable faith, but they have faith that there is no God and cannot back that up anymore than any religion can.
Thanks for sharing your opinion here. I think just pure making a few assumptions that are a bit misguided. And since we both have some interest around this topic Iโll chime in.
As an ex Christian, I understand the premises Christians bring to the table on this topic. It seems youโre bringing the same flaws with your statement.
Youโre assertion that โthat nothing is Godโ is the classic God of the Gaps statement. Which posits that things humans do not know can be chalked up to God. The problem with this logic is that as humans gain more knowledge those โgapsโ that you once attributed to God, evaporate. Humans used to give God credit for lightning.
Next, you suggest that Redditors bash Christianity for believing in a God and then have no better answer. I say if you say you can credibly believe that God created the universe, then you can credibly say the universe has no beginning. Either way you make an assumption but at least you can prove the universe is here. Everyone agrees about this. You can only prove your God to people who believe in that God.
And lastly, the Christian god can be simply debunked on historical, scientific, and other empirical methods. So to continue to believe in the spite of facts and to champion โfaithโ over reason is why Reddit in general says Christians have an unsupportable faith.
Ok and lastly lastly, you say that atheists cannot back up that there is no God. But theists are the ones making the claim of a God. Atheists are not making a claim. We are saying we dont believe the theistic arguments. The burden to prove god isnโt on us. Itโs on theists.
I donโt know what you mean in saying that the Christian God can be โsimply debunkedโ. I really donโt see how there could be evidence that definitively disproves the God of the Bible.
Furthermore, a quote.
โIf Iโm wrong about God, then I wasted my life. If youโre wrong about God, then you wasted your eternity.โ
So far we have the god of gaps fallacy combined with an appeal to emotion and capped off with you submitting pascalโs wager. Maybe the Bible is correct when it says there is nothing new under the sun.
Iโll keep this short (and not hostile), an absolute statement is either absolutely correct or absolutely wrong. The Christian faith makes many absolute statements. Many of these statements can be proven absolutely incorrect. None of the statements can be proven to be absolutely correct.
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
Again, youโre saying these statements can be disproven, and providing no examples. And just giving my statement a name doesnโt discredit it. It is still absolutely true.
Noahโs ark is a scientific impossibility. It defies science on just about every scientific field. Not my problem to disprove something that clearly couldnโt happen.
There is no evidence of Jews in Egypt as slaves. There is no evidence of there being a mass exodus. With the amount of people wandering in the desert as the Bible describes, there would have been enormous amounts of mass graves, artifacts, etc. we have zero evidence of this. Plus if you had the slaves in rows of ten, with four feet of space between them as they walked...that would be 81 miles long lol. Do you really believe there was a 81 mile long group of wandering Jews in the desert?
We know there were other civilizations alive during the time of the supposed flood. Mesopotamia, Sumerians Egyptians, Incas, etc
We have records of nations with diverse languages during the the of the supposed Towel of Babel. Even your own Bible describes the โsons of hamโ and โthe sons of shemโ having their own language in the chapter before the Tower of Babel. But youโll probably repeat some Christian apopolgy about it not being in chronological order. *Suuuuure...
We have no corroborating evidence of the sun stopping in the sky during Joshuaโs supposed battle.
Davidโs army was supposedly 1.2M strong. During a time when the worlds population was only 50M. In present day numbers thatโs akin to having an army bigger than Russiaโs population. Again, there is no corroborating evidence of this.
Jesus and his disciples visited more than 50 towns (a truly conservative estimate) and supposedly performed miracles including healing blind and deaf and paralyzed folks. And raised dead people. But we have no eye witness records after 2000 years of searching.
Paul says in Romans that he went from Jerusalem to Greece performing signs and wonders. And just like Jesus and his disciples we have found no one making any note of this. In the Roman Empire.
This is no different really than saying someone is guilty of a crime even if we have no proof of it at all and not a single actual sighting, just a strong faith and sneaking suspiscion.
last Thursdayism is pretty interesting. Basically, the universe could have been created last Thursday and we all just have planted memories about anything before then.
[deleted] ยท 1813 points ยท Posted at 15:56:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not needed, but most definitely giving a final project presentation. Dropped my papers and ripper right through my pants. It was absolutely audible and I was not wearing appropriate underwear to have a hole in the ass & crotch of my pants. It wasn't just a small rip, somehow, my pant leg was pretty much falling off at the seams and I had to finish the presentation for another 10 minutes all while a nice breeze was rolling through the room. I walked out laughing and covering myself with said presentation packet.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:28:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sir, I feel very sorry for you. The last 10 minutes must have been shit.
The evil genius may have implanted all memories that are within your mind. That is an important part of the thought exercise. This is why the only thing you can be sure is real, is that which is occurring right now.
I was taught that the evil genius only fucks up your mathematical equations so that you can't trust yourself as you do math. So the evil genius's "job" isn't implanting false memories.
Also I learned that Descartes thought that you can't even be sure that right now is real because you can always possibly be in a dream. The only thing you can be sure of is that you yourself exist.
The evil genius (or demon) was supposed to be responsible for every facet of perception - the entire world beyond one's mind could be a creation of the demon and we would have no idea, which suggests that the demon would also be responsible for memories of the false perceptions.
You're right. I just looked it up. For some reason I was taught that the evil genius only tampered with math, and the dream argument was explained on its own terms. But the end result is that you doubt everything, not just everything except right now. And the only thing Descartes didn't doubt after that was that he existed because he was able to think.
Yes, exactly. You likely have maths in the forefront of your mind because I believe it's something that Descartes specifically mentioned the demon could also be deceiving him about. Descartes had certain beliefs or truths that he called 'indubitable' i.e. impossible to doubt. Among these were mathematical truths. To him, 2+2 is just 4, and there is no way you could doubt such a thing, but he was making the point that the demon could influence even his internal rational thoughts; maybe 2+2 is actually 5, but the demon made him think otherwise.
It's basically the real life equivalent of "it was all a dream." There's no way to prove or disprove it, and it doesn't really mean anything since it wouldn't change life as it is even if we knew it was true for certain.
Isn't this just a different version of the idea of us living in a simulation, since there would have to have been some entity that made these memories and orchestrated our creation? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, just interested
It's like playing an MMORPG. The game might be a year old but the in game universe might have thousands of years of history to it. At least from a characters point of view.
Ah yes. But what willl really pickle your beets is next Thursdayism. The universe could have been created next Thursday, but the fact that we perceive tine a linearly forward is also an illusion.
I find ideas that boil down to "Here's a really wacky thing that can be true because you can't prove for an absolute fact that it isn't true" to be really annoying.
Well ya we also cant know that we arent all marionettes being controlled by yellow manatee gods in a puppet show but just tricked by their magic into thinking we're real. But some things are pointless and stupid to seriously consider.
This is why we cant be 100% sure that the New Earth Christians are wrong. What if we really did bleep into existence 6000 years ago? It's something I think about. Don't get me wrong, I'm atheist af
I've been on vacation since last Thursday. Pretty sweet existence thus far.
kouderd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:58:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This bothered me so much when i was a kid in elementary school. I still remember going through all the thought experiments in my head to try figuring out if it's possible or not. For all i know i could just be a 10 minute old AI program with data already set. I could be killed and restarted a week from now and i wouldn't know
Furthermore, I'm befuddled by the concept of eternity into the past. If time is linear, shouldn't it have had to start somewhere for us to reach the point we're at now?
Like, say we're at Point 2 on a number line infinite in both directions. We'd never in all eternity reach Point 2 if there's truly eternity into the past. It had to have started somewhere. To me, this suggests at least one of a few different things: that time is not linear, that an all-powerful deity may exist unrestricted by these limits, or that time began, and that absolutely nothing existed before that.
choobe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:31:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the prevailing theory these days is that time began with the Big Bang.
Xclbr1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:29:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would think about this all the time growing up! "What if the universe and I were just now created at this second, and I was given memories? Nah, that's not possible, I distinctly remember experiencing the moments leading to this moment! Oh wait, that's just my memory of those events!"
I often think about how much of history is either completely fabricated or incorrect. Information changes over the course of many years and is nearly always imperfect.
nlfo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:25:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dark City
helm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:44:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It fails the stupid test - everything is the same, except it has stopped making any sense.
You just came into existence right now. Every memory you've ever had, including reading the start of this sentence, has just been uploaded in your 2 second old brain. Don't worry because you only exist for a minute before you die.
I'm a day late in responding to this - but this was always something that really bothered me about the Harry Potter world.
In that world it was actually possible for this to happen. Hell, for all I know that world actually exists and I was an active member of it up until last Thursday.
The shit they can do to each other with magic is really fucked up
I feel like my life is this. I donโt recognize or โrememberโ being a kid or any younger than a couple years ago. When people recall or reminisce about memories with me I accept that was me, but usually donโt personally recall it.
Weird, but sometimes it does feel like universe was created a week ago.
I like to go with last sundayism. So many people go to church and that provides an alibi for the implantation/calibration/initiation whatever, and explains mondays being the most shit day of work, it is your first after all.
I never understood why people seem so fascinated by run of the mill unfalsifiable claims as if they are somehow deep. I get that this is a meta thought experiment to expose that inclination, but still. If your takeaway from last thursdayism is "whoooah dude" and not "well duh. You can't prove there's not a planet made entirely of cookie dough with chocolate chip aliens running around it somewhere in the universe. it doesn't mean anything though" there's something wrong.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:06:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The whole point is exactly what you're saying. Basically that claims based on "you can't prove I'm wrong" are useless.
Right. I have no problem with last thursdayism. I have a problem with the apparent frequency with which I see exactly the faulty reasoning that is being called out by last thursdayism.I never understood the fascination woth it. There's no challenge, and therefore no fun, in defending it.
Things like carbon dating won't disprove last thursdayism because god (or whoever) could have created things with a proportion of c12 and c14 that would appear to be old, but in fact were created on Thursday.
It's hypothetical. The "science" we know, when used, produces a result that makes us think the world was created before last Thursday. It's one of those things where you can say yeah well but "what if", so everything gets countered.
Wiki says it's used to counter "young earthers", whatever it's called. Basically religous people that think the Earth was created 6000 years ago and dinosaur fossils and the like are fake. If the Earth could have been created 6000 years ago it could've been created last Thursday.
Memento moriโremember death! These are important words. If we kept in mind that we will soon inevitably die, our lives would be completely different. If a person knows that he will die in a half hour, he certainly will not bother doing trivial, stupid, or, especially, bad things during this half hour. Perhaps you have half a century before you dieโwhat makes this any different from a half hour?
โ Leo Tolstoy, The Path of Life, trans. Maureen Cote
It's funny you say that, I was just watching the episode of Penny Dreadful where they explain Memento Mori, about how a slave was forced to stand behind a warrior returning from battle. The slave was seen holding a skull and would whisper in the warriors ears "Memento Mori". And then it is quoted "All of these Memento Mori, for one sobering passage: Remember that you will die"
Maulshi ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:08:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nahh that would be carpe diem. If I recall correctly Memento Mori in the Dark Ages was meant to say how you your mortal life is fleeting and how your real focus should be on the afterlife - which means you're supposed to live your mortal life ethically, following the Bible. It was a common motive used in art, with skulls representing the Memento Mori motive.
piewies ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:34:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Our experience of time is relative to our perspective of it. If youโre ten years old then one year is equivalent to a tenth of your existence and is incredibly long. By the time youโre 100 itโs one percent of your existence and seems to pass in the blink of an eye. By that logic, the first moment of existence couldโve felt like eternity.
Except for the he tldr is actually about half as long as the post itself....
edit: it's actually just a bit less than half as long. tldr is 18 words, main body of the post is 33 words.
Iโm drawing from a short film called The Eagleman Stag so I wouldnโt be surprised if it werenโt solid. And I can almost tell what youโre saying, but it reads more like the same coin? Maybe a little more explanation?
bjfj ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:06:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well this explains why I think the last year felt more like 3.
While Iโm sure that this is generally true, it's also kind of a subjective measure and the problem with "disproving" the first theory is that it's hard to prove anything about someone else's subjective experiences. There's a lot of things that don't jive with this notion, for example, there is a "bump" in memory production that occurs from your late teens to early twenties that everyone seems to go through, regardless of the amount of routine or novelty in their lives at the time.
Thank you for your comment! This makes me happy for some reason. I guess itโs because when youโre old, you still have full days and it doesnโt accelerate away from you.
Certainly not disproved by your counter theory.
I had a lot of new, non-routine things happen this past year, and a whole lot of memories, but it still feels fast.
Realistically, they are both factors of our perception.
I've always wondered in that same regard if life feels longer to people who vividly remember their dreams.
For me when I wake up it's like someone wipes my memory clean and I can't remember anything of my dreams other than maybe that it happened.
My wife however has dreams she remembers in vivid detail and could describe every part of it to you a week later.
Let's say we both dream 6 hours a night for a week, with everything equal that week would feel longer for her in retrospect than it would for me though we both had equal experiences in that period.
I remember my dreams for a bit. Some, I remember more permanently. Some, I forget at the end of a day or a week. Even though I forget the majority shortly after a day is over and a new one starts, I still do place a value on the time I've remembered those dreams for. They are a type of new experience for me. The thing that will hold a non-recurrent dream in memory the most is to talk about it. Not moving around right on waking up helps in the short term, but will not make you less likely to forget at the end of the day.
Yeah, just to elaborate on that, think about how slow time feels when you're on holiday or something.
As each day will contain something outside your regular routine, a week on holiday feels like ages. Whereas a week of work/school can feel like a day when you look back; at least for me anyway.
Hmmm. I think as we grow old,we acquire stuff to do,therefore,consume our time. As a 5 year old me,I don't remember waking up every day and work my ass off because I got bills to pay and worry about other things.
So,yeah,it's probably that perception of time since we are busy with our routines.
This is like the reverse of the claim that an arrow can never reach its target because it has to repeatedly travel half the remaining distance.
infernon_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:13:23 on September 23, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thought about this for a second, particularly last sentence. The problem with that is, we didn't have a first moment of existence, our brains developed slowly and we gradually gained awareness of reality. Super interesting I think.
I came upon this realization myself and its neat to aee ot posted herw. I always get thoughtful and curious looks when i explain this concept of time to people.
Doesn't that just mean old people are really bad at estimating time? It's not like they wouldn't had decades to get used to the new passage of time and get good at estimating it.
Cant remember where I first heard it, but the thing that really gets me is the butterfly dream. Are we people that sometimes dream of being a butterfly? Or are we butterflies dreaming of being people?
Because the physical being is destroyed. Think of it this way; imagine you were being teleported but some kind of way the process went wrong with one person in the chamber and another in the other chamber. Which person would be you? The person in the initial chamber. And that means the person in the other chamber is an imposter .
Is there an objective moral right or wrong? There are some scenarios where we have a knee-jerk answer of whether it's moral or not, such as killing, but when we add nuance, the line can be blurred. And if there isn't an objective morality, how can we weigh one side's framework for morality against our own?
dsds548 ยท 108 points ยท Posted at 16:11:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a very interesting one. What you are describing has theory already. The theory states that there is a universal morality/right, where certain things are agreed by everyone else as morally wrong. Like for instance, if you kill someone, everyone will think it is wrong, nobody will disagree with that.
However, it's lacking because this is clearly not that black and white. For instance if someone is suffering and in a lot of pain, would it be immoral to end the suffering? This is where the theory weakens. Also if you someone had a genetic disease that can get passed on in his/her genes. Is it moral to stop the person from procreating? Or is it moral to do nothing and allow the child to suffer from the same genetic condition?
[deleted] ยท 53 points ยท Posted at 18:36:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Kevl17 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:19:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno but they better not!
Vextin ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 21:52:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also if you someone had a genetic disease that can get passed on in his/her genes. Is it moral to stop the person from procreating?
This is difficult to say, because while there are certain horrible, horrible hereditary illnesses that should absolutely be pulled from the gene pool (I'll pull sickle-cell anemia out of my ass here), another person may respond, "Yes, I agree! Let's also stop all the blacks from procreating and get rid of that pesky dark skin!"
I think humans would have a hard time deciding where the line was.
Sickle cell is a bad example. The reason it is so common in people of African descent is that even one copy of the gene provides some resistance to malaria. Something like Huntingtons is much worse without any positive implications.
So what? What people think about psychology is too. But the topic is still about what the actual answer is, not what people think it is. A lot of people make the mistake of conflating the concept of humans reasoning about morality with the hypothetical thing being reasoned about. Objective morality doesn't even mean humans are capable of fully knowing it.
Also, even "universal morality" isn't really true. Many mass murderers claim that they are saving people by killing them. Most people obviously disagree with them, but it makes it not universal.
That depends on how you think morals come to be. If it's man made, then you'd be correct. However, how are we so sure that they are man made? We could still be just as ignorant about the true nature of morality just as we were about Earth's position in our solar system 1,000+ years ago.
leaf_26 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:11:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
how can we weigh one side's framework for morality against our own
easy. subjectively.
Is there an objective delicious? If not, how can we say that ice cream is yummy and licorice is gross? What if someone else likes licorice and hates ice cream?
Nobody pulls out their hair wrestling with the delicious conundrum, and yet we all feel free to have opinions. Morality is the same thing.
"How can you condemn a murderer, if the murderer thinks he's doing the right thing?" Like this: "We The Jury Find The Defendant Guilty." It's not "The universe finds the defendant guilty."
Sooo many of these problems boil down to "Everything is relative".
Naggins ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 23:36:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"How can you condemn a murderer, if the murderer thinks he's doing the right thing?"
This sentence betrays an embarrassing unfamiliarity with the most basic principles of Western law.
"People disagree" isn't a very substantial argument for subjective morality. People disagree on whether the earth is round or flat. Some of them are just plain wrong.
This sentence betrays an embarrassing unfamiliarity with the most basic principles of Western law.
It would only be embarrassing if someone literally posited that. Instead, I was caricaturing the people who think you need objective morality in order to judge anyone's actions, as a rhetorical device.
"People disagree" isn't a very substantial argument for subjective morality.
I wasn't trying to prove that morality was subjective. I was explaining how one can feel free to declare something to be one way or another, despite a lack of objective standards.
People disagree on whether the earth is round or flat. Some of them are just plain wrong.
They're wrong because that's an objective fact, based in measurable observable reality. Unlike claims about the existence of morality outside the mind of any individual human. If so-called objective morality was observable or measurable, then it would be a different story.
There's also Beauvoir's existential ethics, where there is no cosmic moral formula by which to definitively judge one's or another's actions, but rather there is ambiguity. Actions matter, situations matter, but there is no strict law by which you can determine whether your actions are absolutely right or wrong. A moral act is roughly one that wills your own freedom and that of others, but there is not always a clear line. In my opinion, this is a more rigorous ethics than deontology or utilitarianism because you are never exactly sure so you always have to strive for better, and you are fully responsible for your actions, no matter whether you intended the consequences.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:15:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What movies? Villains working on that logic is often rare, or has an outright flaw worked in like them thinking an authoritarian shithole is what needs of the many means.
kouderd ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:00:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How's this; is it any less humane that chemical weapons are being used in Syria right now than if all those people were killed with napalm or bombs? In fact, doesn't the chemical weapon sound easier than having your body torn apart?
NicoUK ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:55:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Chemical weapons cause more suffering, so they're worse.
Assuming you suffer a direct hit from both.
kouderd ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:35:21 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
More than being burned alive or having a your guts spewed out in front of you and possibly waiting hours to die?
NicoUK ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:32:20 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did you miss the last sentence in my comment? There are only two of them.
krondog ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:24:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sam Harris wrote a book, my favorite by him, titled "The Moral Landscape" about this very subject. It proposes that science can indeed offer some universal truths to the morality of right and wrong, despite philosophy stating otherwise for most of history.
Sam harris is a hack and his book is considered garbage even by other new atheists like dan denett, but its not wrong that objective morality can exist without god. Problem is he assumes its true, then goes on from there when what we are trying to show is that it is true.
No. Hman concepts always only exist inside the subjective mind and never in the onjective outside world. 'Ethical rules' can never be truly, independently objective but we pretend they are (formed from social contracts and evolutionary logical in-built mechanisms like empathy) because that's easier.
Not sure what you think you are trying to say, but humans making a word for something doesn't mean that now that they've conceptualized it it can no longer exist.
It never existed in the first place. Just try to define an everyday (non-mathemathical) concept and you'll soon discover your definition is completely arbitrary.
The fact that all definitions are constructed is an interesting line of thought, but you are mistaken by assuming that that somehow has anything to do with morality not having right answers. You can think of a tree as one object or many, but physically its rules are the same. The fact that "your" world is a phenomenological experience rather than a true thing doesn't actually make the underlying world not exist.
Sure, there is an underlying world, but the words we use to describe it with are subjective concepts that are impossible to make objective. Just try to define an objectively good or bad moral action which isn't based on arbitrary rules. Morality is famously different for everyone for a reason.
Define a morally good action.
Do you want to go the deontologist way and arbitrarily choose virtues people should strive towards or the (hedonistic) utilitaristic way and arbitrarily assign a limit in time and space where the consequences of that action stop?
NicoUK ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:50:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, there is no objective moral right or wrong. Saying so is a belief and just as much religious thinking as believing in God. Ok, so maybe there is a moral right and wrong, and maybe there is a God, but there is still no way to prove either. They are simply beliefs. You can be amoral, but still a "good" and ethical person.
Not only is that not true, but its backwards. Thinking that there can't be an objective moral wrong is only a common thing among atheists because they still use christian meta ethics without realizing it and so their idea of objective morality is still tied up in the idea of god.
You can be amoral, but still a "good" and ethical person.
A few sentences isn't really long. And coincidentally I literally had an explanation in there. You made a mistake of thinking objective morality is tied to religious philosophy. Not only is that not true, but the reason you think it is because you are still using religious philosophy. Namely, you are thinking of meta ethics in terms of divine command theory, and thinking that ethics are like commands, and so the idea of universal ethics isn't coherent outside of a religious paradigm where a god can enforce them everywhere. But that's not what ethics are. Its more like a mathematics of value relations.
In other words, you think objective morality is religious because you are approaching the question from a religious angle... in which the only way of understanding it is the one designed by religious people to argue that the only way it can be objective is with god. Because its approached like commands that can only be objective if something has the power to enforce them everywhere. But that's wrong, and you should really learn about the topic in more depth.
I was not saying morals were religious in that they were defined by god. I was saying the morals were religious in the sense that they are a belief system, just like a religion. To say that some moral stance is objectively good or bad is just a belief system, it can't be proven true.
No, no, I studied it at university so i'm fairly familiar.
More like: It's an extremely complex subject which would take a very long time to fully explain, and I can't really be bothered to boil it down.
Ultimately, there are significant problems with any anti-realist position on the existence of moral facts, whereas there are good reasons to believe they are real (for example: we all have an intuition that certain things are wrong in themselves, and don't relate to our own simple perspective). Additionally, any sufficient framework that removes moral facts from the realm of things that exist, and that we can know, would also remove the existence of, and our ability to know, all physical things as well. It's therefore quite a difficult moral theory to hold.
That's why a majority of professional philosophers do not hold anti-realist or "relativist" views of morality. Often people talk as if it's trivially obvious that moral relativism is true so I think it's important to note that this simply isn't the case for people whose job it is to think about it.
I dont think so personally. Pretty much any example anyone could bring up could be explained away as not only not being morally wrong, but probably an example of being morally right. It is interesting to think about because you could also look at how people initially react to something before knowing the details (such as murder likely being looked at as wrong) and judge the objectivity off of that because that's probably the truest indication of how a person feels about something.
You should check out an experiment test inline called kill the fat man.
NicoUK ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:54:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this like the trolley problem? Because the answer is obviously to kill the one person. You're choosing to kill 1, or 5 (or 6 if you're eager), just framing it to sound ambiguous.
If you are comfortable pulling the lever to save the five and kill the one, there are other situations that you ought to be comfortable with. For example, killing a random man in order to give essential organs to five people who you know will make a perfect recovery if they receive them. What is the morally relevant difference between these two cases?
NicoUK ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:32:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is the morally relevant difference between these two cases?
Circumstance.
The trolley problem has a limitation of time, and resources (the victims).
With the organ recipients you have more time, and you can choose a suitable 'donor'.
There's also the fact that without the chooser, the donor wouldn't be in danger, which means instigating that danger makes that choice morally worse.
I looked this up, and it made me realize I should not be weighing in on moral issues. I thought for sure the popular choice would be to kill the fat man because, you know...train sacrifice is one of the overlooked dangers of obesity.
The morally right thing is what results in the least suffering and the most happiness. There are so many variables that it's near impossible to figure out definitively how to achieve that but that doesn't mean there isn't a objective answer. It just means we don't know what it is.
I've heard something similar before. I think there can not be objective morality. Take a universe with no life, only things made of atoms and molecules but no conscience. There is no action which you could describe as morally right or wrong.
Any morality might then be described with respect to a conscience of some kind. But, then it would not be objective at all and instead subjective to the conscience at hand. Like we describe morality with respect to our contemporary beliefs, for example, slavery.
The morality of an action can also depend on intent and context as well. Killing is morally wrong. But what if it is in a war, is it right? What if the soldier sadistically takes pleasure from it, is it wrong again? Also consider an alien from another planet may have a different considerations for an action's morality.
There is no action which you could describe as morally right or wrong.
There's also no like, beavers, but those can exist too.
Robot-8 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:51:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It would seem morality is the byproduct of a self-perserving system. In humans the likeliness of one's survival relies on the preservation of other humans, aside from the individual, for protection and reproduction. Morality seems to be a guide created to best benefit the system based on our most contemporary understanding of ourselves and the universe, that's been built upon for a long time.
More interestingly to me would be the introduction of self-preservation in organisms and if that's something that arose from more simple characteristics of our universe, like how nonliving objects can resist change.
Would morality as we know it simply be a human construct?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:23:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I love questions like this. I don't think there is an objective morality. It's something we develop and a bit like a muscle. Everyone is different but we are in general agreement on how to work that muscle when it comes to issues like violence and cruelty.
Some people don't develop their morality, or develop a different morality based on personal experience. I think we base our morality on how we are treated, and the values and attitudes of those close to us in the context of the world around us.
No ones view of morality is quite the same as anyone else's. And like a muscle if you don't exercise it it gets weaker. By exercising morality I just mean doing what you think is right. If you go against your own values they begin to falter.
Stay true to yourself and be the change you want to see. I hate the idea that our capacity for good comes from anything other than ourselves.
By objective moral right or wrong you mean Absolute Morality? I think this answer, for each person will depend, not entirely, but largely due to believing in God(s) or not. The whole question of "where did our morality come from?" debate.
Rheywas ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:40:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually Stefan Molyneaux explains this pretty well in this video.
This guy does a pretty good logical analysis of it here.
aft2001 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:44:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I find this one real interesting. I haven't seen this episode of Doctor Who but I remember seeing a captioned image of some alien being saying "Your right is my wrong, and your wrong is my right."
Sure, we all agree killing is bad, but why? Would an alien species whose survival didn't depend on cooperation find killing to be immoral?
Related to this is desires and rights. Would a robot who is programmed solely to serve humans mind being a slave? It's its sole purpose, what it was engineered to do, and programmed to want to do. It doesn't have emotions unless we give it them. It doesn't have intelligence unless we give it it. So, why would it have an innate sense to preserve itself if it wasn't made to do so?
Morality is quite a comical branch of philosophy. Most philosophy can be argued without a lot of hand wavy explanations, but it is required by morality because of the contingent nature of "happiness" and the contradictory wants of the people.
Aikeko ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:18:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I really like the Buddhist take on this, where the goal is to "cause no suffering" or at least minimize it as much as possible. In that regard, objective moral wrong will always be whatever causes the most suffering in the end. Here comes the argument that we can't predict the future...
I thought about this a bit, and basically my thought is there is no objective right or wrong, no objective good or bad. Things that happen are just events in and of itself.
Good or bad are arbitrary evaluation we place on that event. And those evaluations are relavtive to an arbitrary standard we devised.
And those standards tend to be based on what it popularly accepted at the time and these change over time (acceptance of slavery as an example, it different by time period and even by region).
There is no objective measure of morality.
Killing someone is just an event/action. How we label it will really depend on many factors, and ultimately, the relative value system of the person or people making that determination.
On a side note, this is how I try to stay even keeled. Everything is good or bad based on how it varies from the person's expectations. If you go to China and expect they're to be aggressive drivers, you're less likely to be upset at being cutoff. Or going into a movie with no expectations and being pleasantly surprised.
For me, I try to manage my expectations by lowering them or having no expectations, and try to experience events as is. But I'm only human so it's not like I never get upset, but I try to keep it to a minimum.
Great question! Thinking on this, I feel the concepts of right and wrong cannot exist without a conscience to reflect on the morality in question, and then pass judgement. Meaning they exist only in the minds of beings capable of that kind of self reflection and are therefore subjective. (I say beings, not just humans, as interestingly, we can assume from their studied behaviour that a monkey may commit an act knowing that it is 'wrong', i.e. not in line with the monkey's group hierarchy. This could transfer to other species as well, dogs for example.)
Morality over time and across cultures I would imagine can be measured by considering the benefit to the group that a certain moral weighting offers. For example, a punishment for stealing even a loaf of bread in parts of Asia used to (probably still does?) result in having the thieving hand chopped off. This suggests stealing is a very wrong thing to do. In modern Western culture that same stolen loaf would result in only a slapped wrist, not a chopped one, suggesting the deed is not axtually so bad in this group. Who is right? In reality, a severed limb in Western culture costs a hell of a lot more to deal with in medical fees and inability to contribute to society than a loaf of bread. And there the face of true morality, if there could ever be such a thing, becomes clouded - because it depends on pervading external influences.
Moral right and wrong are just what an entire group of people in a community agree on. The problem arises when that community or group of people expand to several billion. It always going to be hard to get that many people to come to a real consensus about anything so morality is really just what the majority of people in a specific group agree on what is right and wrong at that point in time.
There's no objective right or wrong. Every society just decides what is good and bad based on what is productive and "best" for everyone.
Murder isn't objectively bad. There can be some good reasons to do it, but we've decided as a society that it's a bad thing to do because of other reasons. Deciding which reasons are more important is completely arbitrary.
Imagine putting two sharpie dots on a brand new deflated balloon. Then think about what happens to the space between those dots as you would inflate the balloon. Where is the center of the surface of the balloon? Are the dots getting further apart from each other in every direction? If the balloon instead had a grid drawn on it, wouldn't every square be expanding?
You actually are the center of your observable universe. Because the observable universe is just the part of the universe which light has reached us which makes it a sphere with you at the center.
idejmcd ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:30:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Another cosmological idea I learned recently that blew my mind: Cosmological natural selection. The idea provides a theory on how the process that created this universe may function in a way similar to evolution, but instead of a life form passing naturally selected genetics to the next generation you have a success universe would pass on successful physical models to new universes created by black holes. The idea pre-supposes that black holes are seeds for entirely new universes, and that any 2 universes may have a model of physics that vary from each other.
For example, this universe could be considered successful because of the vast number of black holes which have been created within it. Each black hole represents an entirely new universe but with a physical model that mirrors our own universe. Our universe has successfully passed on its code for success to new universes. Compare this to an (imaginary) universe where physics operate differently from our own (Maybe light travels at a different speed, or gravity has the opposite effect). Maybe this universe only creates 1 or 2 black holes because the conditions are not as conducive to this outcome. These 2 child universes would also be less likely to produce a preponderance of black holes due to their physical model being similar to the parent universe
I'm sure I've butchered this, and it's obviously only a theory, and less than that because it makes a lot of guesses about black holes and alternate universes. But the idea that there's a parent universe out there similar to our own, or a huge number of child universes similar to our own, is pretty mindblowing to think about. Is there a universe out there so exactingly similar that I'm commenting about cosmology on reddit?
I've had similar shower thoughts throughout my life. What would our universe look like if one of the physical laws was altered slightly? If the speed of light were marginally slower or the gravitational force a little weaker, how grand of an effect would that have on the formation of everything in that universe? Are there an infinite number of universes out there with altered forms of the physical laws we know, and even still ones with physical properties we can't conceive?
Idk man I'm just Dave, but it's cool to think about.
idejmcd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:42:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
no more than I literally create rubber by inflating a balloon.
*edit: jesus christ, armchair astrophysicists... I didn't say space was literally like the rubber on a balloon. I just gave an illustration of how something can get bigger without any additional material being created. Please, nobody else needs to explain to me how space is not made of stretchy rubber.
Does space have some invariant measure that doesn't change during expansion?
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:26:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The 'strength' of dark energy remains constant and does not vary with the expansion of the universe.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:29:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:49:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dark energy has nothing to do with dark matter.
Dark energy is the name of the something causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Dark matter is, from what we can understand so far, some form of matter that interacts with the rest of the universe via gravity only.
I don't believe so. But in that sense, space doesn't exist at all, and cannot be created nor destroyed.
In the sense that astronomers use it,
Over time, the space that makes up the universe is expanding. The words 'space' and 'universe', sometimes used interchangeably, have distinct meanings in this context. Here 'space' is a mathematical concept that stands for the three-dimensional manifold into which our respective positions are embedded while 'universe' refers to everything that exists including the matter and energy in space, the extra-dimensions that may be wrapped up in various strings, and the time through which various events take place. The expansion of space is in reference to this 3-D manifold only; that is, the description involves no structures such as extra dimensions or an exterior universe.
If you think the phrase "created" can apply to this operation, then this is just a language problem. /shrug
Tommero ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:09:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I didn't say space became thinner, or the universe was a rubber balloon, or any other nonsense. I just said a balloon is an example of how a thing can get bigger without more material being "created".
Space is not like that. We aren't 'thinning it out'.
I never said the universe was being stretched thinner and thinner. All I said was that it was not correct that space is being literally created, and then gave an analogy that illustrates how something can get bigger without anything being created.
Also the fact that if the Big Bang theory is correct, the center of the Universe is literally everywhere.
This is actually more to do with the theory that the universe is infinite in all directions. By definition, if there is an equal (infinite) amount of space in all directions from a given point, then that point is the centre of the universe.
That's awkward due to the fact that infinity does not equal infinity in mathematics. The most simple way to explain that would be something along the lines of the amount of numbers between 0 and 1 and the amount of numbers between 0 and 2.
Unless I'm missing something, I would argue that the set of numbers between 0 and 1 is a subset of the set of numbers between 0 and 2. It's been a long time since I've done a proof, but I'm pretty sure I could prove that a set must be larger than one of it's subsets. My two infinite sets would be {xโฃxโR,x<1,x>0} and {{xโฃxโR,x<1,x>0}, {xโฃxโR,x<2,x>=1}}.
A subset can be the same size as its superset. In fact, every set is a subset (and superset) of itself. Semantics aside, there is a very simple bijection from the set 0-1 to the set 0-2 by using f(x) = 2x.
Nah, cardinality is done using Schroder-Bernstein: if I can find an injection from set A to B and another injection from B to A, then they have the same cardinality.
You cannot prove that. Consider the function f(x)=x-1 defined from N\{1} -> N
That is, f(2) = 1
f(3) = 2
f(4) = 3
and so on
It's trivial to prove that this function is bijective, which means the two sets have the same cardinality, despite the fact that N\{1} is a proper subset of N.
Or similarly, and the more quintessential example, the function f(x) = 2x from N to the set of even numbers.
Towerss ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:22:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It isn't creating space, it is already infinite. It is creating distance between the particles in space
To expand on this, at about 16 billion light years away the universe is expanding away faster than the speed of light. We will never receive any light or other information about anything beyond this distance.
My personal theory is that these horizons eventually become the outer edge of a white hole, creating a new big bang that is only perceived inside of the now trapped space.
We are, in a sense, falling into a smaller and smaller universe, each time resetting the meaningless concept of the plank distance to compensate for it. Not sure if that works out in the grand scheme of astrophysics, but its got an elegant recursion to it, which is pleasant.
the center of the Universe is literally everywhere.
Its not quite that. We see space expanding in all directions at the same rate. Therefore its not possible to prove that any particular point is the centre of the universe, since all points see the "edge" of the universe the same way.
By the way, the universe is expanding at double the speed of light. This does not invalidate special relativity.
bepseh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:51:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if the universe is actually imploding rather than expanding? So everything in it is just getting smaller and smaller and moving towards the center, but if you could observe it from the outside, it would be the same size.
rpoola ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:42:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An interesting way to visualize this is to imagine a bubble that's getting air blown into it, except the surface of the bubble isn't 2D, but 3D.
I'd argue the "creating space" part. We do not know what or if there is anything past the universe. What if an universe is just like a galaxy within an universe? If there's several universes which are in something bigger or perhaps our universe exists within a dimension and we'd theoretically be able to enter another dimension and universe by exiting our own universe (if we were physically able to travel that fast).
That we can talk to each other and that we can understand each other, even if we are not directly replying to the other person.
A: Do you come to the party tonight?
B: I have an exam tomorrow.
We often don't realize how our language works. But if you begin to think about it it can become quite difficult to explain why some things mean this and others mean that. And how its possible to talk about Unicorns and fictional things.
The entire move is genre-defining. you should watch it. EVen if you've seen it, watch it again.
2ndarily, woman says "balls to bones".
It was just last year, when I was watching it with my kids, that i realized that the phrase doesn't mean depth.
It describes the length of life. . . from un-ejaculated spermatozoa to the point where even microbes are no longer interested in feeding off your remains.
dwjlien ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:48:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You should really watch the Matrix, still a great film.
Thanks for this. As a concept, it makes perfect sense. I have had the conversation about color with people before (Is my green the same as your green?). I think that's a common one.
I like this because I think the concept could be used a good talking point when talking to people that don't understand mental illness. Whether it's something extreme like schizophrenia or dementia or something more mild like anxiety (not to minimize anxiety, I just think that's easier to maybe understand than the more extreme situations), this concept explains how difficult (or impossible) it is for us to explain a sensation to someone who has never experienced it.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:24:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Indosay ยท 188 points ยท Posted at 17:23:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Man, just language in general is so cool. It's this evolving blob of thought representation that changes and mutates and morphs and warps and traverses through time and culture and location. We try to place rules on it, which are important in some aspect, but it's not the language itself that's ultimately important. Language is a tool to convey feelings and abstract thoughts. Just so neat.
Linguistics really is a fascinating subject. The most amazing thing to me is how the language that a person speaks shapes the way they think. Like the idea that ancient civilizations may not have been able to perceive the color blue because they had no word for it. 1984 also has an interesting theoretical take on it with using newspeak to restrict thought. The idea that you can prevent people from thinking certain thoughts by denying them any words to express those thoughts is both amazing and terrifying.
That always amazes me too. I was raised bilingual in the USA by immigrant parents and have thought of this a lot. I learned a third language as an adult and my favorite thing is speaking to other English/Portuguese/Spanish speakers because we have the best of 3 worlds as far as vocabulary choices. There are words in each language that don't exist in any of the others and it is incredible.
Does it mean English speakers have never experienced saudade or the fleeting beauty of apaixonar? Why does sobremesa describe a meal course in Portuguese and an action in Spanish? Its interesting to me that both of the Romance languages I speak have countless more words to describe emotional states and the people who speak these languages are seen as passionate.
Its complex and has an underlying structure somehow, which is really interesting to explore. I attend some classes about philosophy of language this year and I'm exicted to learn more about it.
There was a thread that I read about this I'd guess around a year or so a go, I wish I could give credit to the person who wrote this but I loved the comment so much I saved it. I'll post it below.
Even when you express yourself through words you cannot fully convey what is on your mind.
Words may be a type of thought but they are not the unit of thought. Consider for a moment when you know what you mean but struggle to find the word to express it. That thought is one not in words.
Describe all you can about a smell, a taste, or a color -- there is more in your experience of it than in your description. From simply your description another likely would not be able to recreate the exact thing.
Think about a smell which evokes in you a memory. You may put words to that memory but there is more in your experience than the words alone can do justice.
Not only are words not the unit of thought, more they may not be understood as intended. We each use words based on the experiences we've had. While there is a lot of overlap between how we have seen words used and how we have seen them defined our experiences are not identical. Uses differ, definitions differ if only slightly so. We can see this on a large scale as messages aren't interpreted the same between people of different political affiliation, socioeconomic status, or region but also at a smaller scale where even within similar groups there are different interpretations of the same sentence. What I mean by writing this may not be what you understand in reading.
If we extend that idea to interactions between people we see we are inherently lonely because we cannot even explain what it is like to be us, to do so implies we know what it is like to be our audience as well as to know what it is like to be ourself and therefore to know what is different and worthy of commenting on.
So my answer, what really bends my mind, is to try to actually understand what another perspective is like. We'd like to think we understand but I'd argue to convince ourselves of that is to delude ourselves. It kind of blows my mind that something which in ways seems so simple really isn't at all.
I read this philosophy book once that's really influenced me, and this comment brings it to mind. It's called "Finite and Infinite Games" by James Carse. If you find that comment interesting, I think this book will capture you. Quotes from that book follow me everywhere now.
"When you relinquish your words from your lips, you relinquish them to my ear."
"It is simultaneous to the discovery that I am the unrepeatable center of my universe that you are the unrepeatable center of your own."
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:30:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you for sharing this. It's so true. I mentioned in another comment that I am trilingual, and of my two friends I feel most understood by- one speaks all 3 languages I do and the other (my boyfriend) speaks 2 of the same ones. Our conversations are peppered quite liberally with words and idioms from our other languages and it's immensely helpful in communicating.
At the same time it reaches a point where language doesn't matter so much as feeling understood or at ease that you are accepted. I have seen people with a language barrier between them who get along more easily and have more in common than those of us who can communicate verbally.
Indosay ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:09:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's really cool. I did a double major in English and Philosophy, but my school didn't offer a philosophy of language class haha. At least not while I was there. I would have loved that, though. One of my favorite classes was sort of a language philosophy class. It was some intro linguistics class. Super interesting, super cool. Exactly like we're talking about, exploring language at its underlying structure in different cultures and different time periods. Just so awesome to see how it changes.
Language as a whole has always fascinated me. I know 3 languages and currently in University. Here everyone knows English but most speak their own mother tongue if they are in their circle of similar speaking friends. Seeing how I can barely understand some words but mostly not understand anything else for languages with a similar origin is quite interesting.
Even for a completely foreign language, there can a lot to understand from non-verbal habits, body language and context clues.
Indosay ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:49:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Totally! I work for a cultural not-for-profit and am surrounded by a language I don't speak every day and have been for 5 years. 1) I know it's really dumb that I haven't just learned the language yet haha but 2) I swear after all this time being surrounded by it daily, I can sometimes sort of understand what's going on just by how something is being said or body language or the one or two words I sort of know. Of course many, many times I have no idea. But there are definitely times where I just kind of know what was just asked or what was just discussed even though I didn't understand a word of what was just said. I'll try to confirm it after the conversation is over and sometimes I'm way off lol. But there have definitely been times where I was right, I picked it up just based on the other aspects of the language other than the words themselves.
Another fun story, I visited Amsterdam with some friends maybe 8 years ago or so. One of my friends spoke a little German. We met an American and my friend mentioned she could pick up a little of the Dutch we heard throughout the city because it was very similar to German in some ways. The American laughed and told us not to say that to any Dutch people we met. That it's a sort of sore spot because some people still hold some negative views towards German for World War II. I don't know if that's true or if he was just lying haha, but we thought it was interesting.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:01:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I recently noticed something like this while making some translations, and it extends to international communication, regarding how humans communicate and understand each other.
For instance, a word can have a direct and agreed translation, but, given its context in each country's culture, it will have a different meaning or imagery in the speaker/listener's head.
The example that made me think of this is the word "Barbecue". Different countries will have different words for it, but most of them will have a direct translation, but the way people think of a Barbecue in each country is different, so we can talk about the same thing, but the way we picture it can be totally different.
There is a position called "determinism" where all events are determined by other events, and there is the opposite where events do not have causes. There are people who argue free will does not exist either way.
If something external like our environment determines our thoughts and actions, then why do we feel like we have free will?
On the other hand, our thoughts and actions may not actually be determined by other things, but wouldn't that mean they are random, and free will still doesn't exist?
Determinism all comes down to causality. Everything we have experienced, everything macrocosmic to microcosmic, all science, is reliant on the truth of causality. To think that human consciousness somehow exists outside of that same universal rule is hard to accept.
The universe could inherently be random,you can't claim such a thing with absolute certianty just because things seem to be orderly in the larger scale. It may go against your intuition but the universe doesn't have to make sense to you or me. Especially once you are in the quantum level.
I don't agree with that. The way I see it, you choose how you react to the past. You can expose 4 people to the same event, and all 4 will likely have a different outlook coming out of it. Yes, the past even caused me to have a reaction, but I chose the reaction. It's a mixture of free will and causation
Edit: gave my opinion on a philosophical conundrum that nobody can truly understand, got down voted. Never change reddit.
At this point, it depends on how you define free will. No, you can't change the one possible future that is going to occur. Yes, your wants influence your actions. It's somewhere in the middle.
Yeah but you can't choose your wants. Therefore no free will. It's actually really hard (I daresay impossible) to define free will without resorting to mysticism or metaphysics.
Lots of research in favor of the idea that choices that we deem conscious are finalized before we even realize we have made a choice (several seconds before in some cases). Where's the will in that?
bwv549 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:27:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lots of research in favor of the idea that choices that we deem conscious are finalized before we even realize we have made a choice (several seconds before in some cases).
A few friends and I asked ourselves what it took to minimally define a human being. One friend told me that a human is essentially defined by three things: DNA (the building blocks), experiences (what happens to you over time), and choices. I always felt compelled to argue that choices are a product of DNA and experiences rather than a separate defining feature. I mean, if you were born to Hitler's parents, with Hitler's genes and experienced all of Hitler's experiences, how can you argue that you would without doubt choose a different path?
I'm not trying to deny the existence of free will necessarily, but I do think it's much easier to accept that it is an illusion at best. That said, the illusion of free will is enough to hold people accountable for their actions. Fun topic, everyone!
Well, yeah, that definition is an extreme definition.
Kevl17 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:39:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The point is that what you perceive as your choice is actually a complex series of inputs and outputs no different to a computer. You receive stimulus, your brain processes, and out comes your thought/action/reaction based on the stimulus and the composition of your brain.
I'll have to look in to it. It's a super interesting topic to think about and debate for sure. I don't think we as humans will ever truly find the answer 100% but still
A movie "Ship of theseus" has an excellent quote on freewill.
The fungus enters an ant's body through its respiration. It invades it's brain and changes how it perceives smell, because ants do everything they do from their smell of pheromones, right? So this microscopic little fungal spore, then makes the ant climb up the stem of a plant and bite hard on a leaf, with an abnormal force. The fungus then kills the ant, and continues to grow, leaving the ant's exoskeleton intact. So, a small fungus drives an ant around as a vehicle, uses it as food and shelter and then as the ultimate monument to itself. And when the fungus is ready to reproduce, its fruiting bodies grow from the ant's head and rupture releasing the spores, letting the wind carry them to more unsuspecting food. There, our entire idea of free will down the bin.One single small fungus spore does that to an ant. You have trillions of bacteria in your body. How do you know where you end, and where your environment begins"
I myself am a compatibilist: the universe is deterministic, our actions are "already written", but yeah, we do have free will to choose to do whatever we want to (but "God/the Universe/wtvr" already knows what we will choose)
(but "God/the Universe/wtvr" already knows what we will choose)
That's one of the reasons I left Christianity. If god created billions of people knowing they would end up in hell, tortured for eternity, then why'd he create them? That just seems evil, if it were true.
I'm sure it does for many. But it's just like a movie or book. No matter how many times the story is watched or told, the ending is always the same. But the characters living the story feel and act like they have free will.
Yeah, cause and effect. "This happens so im acting in this way". Thats still an arguement against free will, at least to me. You dont choose what to eat, for example. Its decided for you based on instinct and what the world is telling you to eat.
I had this happen to me. Played Rock Paper Scissors to see who went home early. I won. Guy finished his shift and killed somebody with his car on the way home. Cyclist came out in front of a direct tv van.
According to Wikipedia's article on it, it is "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded," which is how I used it. Sorry I couldn't link to the article since I'm on mobile.
I don't intend to be picking an arbitrary word from each response and demanding that you define it here. I intend for you to meaningfully specify what exactly you're talking about.
That's a good question. I think "choosing" involves using the mind to think and then making an action as a result. Let me know if I'm being vague, though I don't mean to be.
I think it's the "unimpeded" part of it, actually. In my understanding, determinism says that prior events can interfere with your situation and impede the amount or type of reactions (thoughts and actions) you can possibly have in your life.
As far as I can tell, from that definition of it. I'd be interested in seeing arguments supporting free will though, because I've really just focused on ones against it which may make me biased.
This is looking at "free will" as a law that binds the universe.
Technically speaking, "random" is a human term that explains a definite outcome of a wide range of possible outcomes. If you Roll a dice, there is an equal chance of it hitting all of the 6 possible outcomes - but this is due to physics - you're actually never getting that same dice roll 100% randomly, because factors in your throw will increase the likelyness of one of the definite outcomes.
But if you think as if each roll of the dice was predetermined, then it is 100% sure that it isn't random, because the laws of physics would always react in whatever way that roll played out.
Your decision to throw the dice is what mattered. You had the option not to. It's not a definite state - but first when you actually do the dice roll, it collapse to a definite state - the action have already been done.
this is all fucking confusing to grasp, but it's soooo wild if you think about it.
Good book by Holbach on it. Everything that you experience is a result of pre-determined past events that are beyond your control and result in us having no free will.
Just as your heart beats without any body controlling it, your mind thinks, there is nobody behind the scene pulling the curtains.
I think it matters politically. Determinists are often leftists or Marxists, as far as I can tell. If external influences truly determine all our lives, then there's no reason to reward a person who works hard, because something external made them work hard in the first place. Similarly, a lazy person would not deserve less, because he didn't just decide one day to be lazy instead of working hard. It leads to the idea that all people are equally deserving.
That's what a leftist would argue. The way I see it, the political left believes that people are not created equal, their lives being determined, but they deserve to be equal, and the political right believes people are created equal, all having the free will to determine their own lives, but they should be made inequal in wealth according to how hard they work. They're polar opposites, but it's all about what people are like when they are born, and what they deserve in life.
As far as I can tell, the leftist argument relies on the idea that people have no free will, while the rightist argument relies on the idea that they do have a free will.
In my opinion, the question of free will is extremely important for that reason. I'm a bit of an "armchair philosopher," though. If someone were to educate on it, I might think differently.
I am a leftist, and I'd say people do have free will, they just don't have the same opportunities.
Prondox ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:53:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
2 things affect how you will act, your genetics which you had nothing to do with and things that happen around you / to you that you have no choice in happening and that happen because of actions of other people. What you do is predetermined by other actions
If it exists, then worrying about it is silly, because it exists, and there's no reason to be concerned in the first place.
If it doesn't exist, then you don't have any choice about whether or not you believe it exists anyway, so there's no point in worrying about it because you can't actually change anything anyway.
Free will, as most people understand it, actually does exist, though, if you think of free will as an independent agent making decisions based on information available to it. That certainly exists.
Whether or not the agents truly are capable of making different choices is the unresolvable question.
I'll repost what I replied to someone else. Warning though, I used the definition that free will is "the ability to make a decision about potential options unimpeded."
I think it matters politically. Determinists are often leftists or Marxists, as far as I can tell. If external influences truly determine all our lives, then there's no reason to reward a person who works hard, because something external made them work hard in the first place. Similarly, a lazy person would not deserve less, because he didn't just decide one day to be lazy instead of working hard. It leads to the idea that all people are equally deserving.
That's what a leftist would argue. The way I see it, the political left believes that people are not created equal, their lives being determined, but they deserve to be equal, and the political right believes people are created equal, all having the free will to determine their own lives, but they should be made inequal in wealth according to how hard they work. They're polar opposites, but it's all about what people are like when they are born, and what they deserve in life.
As far as I can tell, the leftist argument relies on the idea that people have no free will, while the rightist argument relies on the idea that they do have a free will.
In my opinion, the question of free will is extremely important for that reason. I'm a bit of an "armchair philosopher," though. If someone were to educate on it, I might think differently.
The entire idea is flawed to begin with. There's no actual value in that argument at all.
The correct way to look at it is to look at the outcomes of the systems.
Capitalism works because it is a sophisticated system of reciprocal altruism in which even selfish actors are strongly incentivized to work for the public good - because producing more value gives you more value, everyone is encouraged to produce more value, and the amount of value produced by society as a whole is maximized, because it is in everyone's individual interest to produce as much value as they can.
Free will is irrelevant to this; if actions are deterministic, then capitalism works because the system creates this behavior. If actions are free, then free actors are encouraged to act optimally under capitalistic systems.
When you look out into the night sky, the blackest black isn't the far back wall of the universe. That's just as far as your eye can see. There's more beyond that.
Actually there is a horizon in which, due to general reletivity and other astrophysics, light will never reach us from. It is because the universe is expanding faster than light can traverse it. The wall is there, but it is so far away that what you are saying may as well be true.
[deleted] ยท 61 points ยท Posted at 21:37:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You know your cousin? Y'all are related right? That's reletivity
Mayday72 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:45:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's spelling bro
AltCrow ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 00:58:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We haven't reached that wall yet though. The reason we're currently limited in our view is because some stuff hasn't existed long enough yet for light to reach us.
It was actually isolated a few years ago by a Finnish scientist. You'll probably need headphones to get the full experience, but it's kinda mind-blowing:
the sound of the universe expanding
Yog-Sothoth and Azathoth are on the other side of that
Kahzgul ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 19:36:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's also not black. In an infinite universe, what you're looking at, anywhere you look in the sky at any time is either a star, or an object directly between you and a star that is blocking the light of that star. What we think of as black only seems so because the other stars we can see at night are so bright they dwarf the power of the light of the stars that is reaching us from the blackness.
Kahzgul ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:58:44 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
fixed.
infernon_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:16:48 on September 23, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or, in a curved universe, if there was a straight line without anything in the way, it would loop back around and you would essentially be looking towards the back of your head
The main thing about the vastness of the universe that really dumbfounded me recently is the fact that there are stars light we will never see, but our kids may, or their kids may etc.
There are stars whose light hasn't traveled a far enough distance for us to see them yet, and that can be due to recent formation, or just the immeasurable distance in light years away from us here on Earth.
I saw a gif one time where the Hubble telescope zoomed into a seemingly black part of the night sky, and it found like 10 billion galaxies or some crazy shit.
Also, astronauts described the sky on the dark side of the moon as a sheet of white.
God is Omnicient, knowing literally everything that has, is, and will happen.
Therefore God knows what it will do next at all times.
Does God choose that action, or is it chosen for it?
EDIT: guys its a thought experiment, wether god exists or not is irrelevant to it, as is wether you believe or not. Its a hypothetical.
Byizo ยท 142 points ยท Posted at 15:52:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or does free will suggest that there is a near infinite web of possibilities based on everyone's decisions, small or large, that they make every day and those decisions steadily collapse our reality into a single thread? But even then you're thinking in the realm of time. It's kind of hard to think about something that is beyond time, existing everywhere at every moment, especially that everything we know is based on the passing of time.
So maybe the right question is "Can something not constrained by time have free will, or make decisions at all?"
Kahzgul ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 19:32:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like where you're going. It begs the question "Can something not constrained by time take action?" Because the very act of doing something implies a before the thing was done and an after.
I think it would be harder for something that experiences time to have free will. All arguments about free will refer to an event like a human thought or action and it's relation to other events.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:50:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think in God's case that there must be a will that can expand further than our free will. Perhaps a predefined will, but the word "will" is not correct to describe God. God exists outside of space and time, being omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
God knows all that will happen because of omniscience, but he also exists at all times because of his omnipresent nature. If God is omnipotent, he has the power to create our entire existence down to every last detail in an instant. I would argue that he is not constrained by free will because he has no need to be. So all human choices constrained by free will have already been decided by God within the instant he created everything, but as humans, we have a perception of free will because we live within a linear timeline that cannot be reversed.
CharB1 ยท 63 points ยท Posted at 18:32:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Perhaps if we take that God is the unmoved mover and therefore unchanging in his will, he has free will to do anything, but since his will never changes or has conflict, his actions follow the same will. Since we're humans and our wills differ depending on what her we feel happy, angry, sad, or perhaps change because of percieved threats, our wills change in the moment. But since God doesn't change, his will would likewise stay the same. And from the unmoved mover we would know that our creation is from his will. So everything that happens past, present, and future. Has already been decided since God would be outside of time
this doesn't make sense though: if god is omniscient, he knows what he will do, but if he knows what he will do, then his actions are predetermined and thus not free. therefore if god is omniscient, he does not have free will.
CharB1 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:42:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well that's a loop of him not being to be do what he wants because he always knows what he wants. Either way he still has free will because Gods will is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow since he is outside of time, and since his will is not changed
Here's another one: an author writes a story in which there's an omniscient God as a character, such as C.S. Lewis' Aslan. If the author decides not to allow it, God doesn't know He's in a fictional story.
So god can see everything that could be. That would mean that he is not bound to our reality and even though we experience time once he could experience all of time. Maybe that means that we live our lives with set paths that we can choose i.e. Free will. So maybe there's a version of you that could become president or a movie star. It might not be who you actually become but the potential is there
WhyLater ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 22:30:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God would be outside of time
This concept is nonsensical. What does it mean to be "outside of time"? In order to be said to exist, a thing must have a presence in spacetime. So logically, for something to be "outside of time", it must not exist.
Edit: Before you downvote and reply with the thought experiment involving 2-dimensional beings observing the 3rd dimension, think โ how many 2-dimensional creatures have you observed?
...No. That is not an actual scientific observation or theory. At best, the 5th dimension is a mathematical abstraction. Some quantum physicists hypothesize that the interactions between subatomic particles can be qualified as a "5th dimension", but that's really abstract stuff. Like, String Theory.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:18:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
if you could imagine the entire scope of time/space all at once would that not be outside of time to view that
We have no reason to believe that such a thing is possible, or even makes sense. To view something requires light, which exists quite fundamentally within spacetime. Sure, I can imagine a being "looking at spacetime from without", but I can imagine all sorts of magical beings that don't comport with reality.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:20:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You should also remember that this is a philosophical discussion thread, not a religious debate.
You're inadvertently making my point. Google's definition of 'philosophy': "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." Abstract ideas of "outside of existence" do not fall under the purview of serious philosophy.
When you start referencing magical beings you just come off like an angry athiest [sic].
Why would me being either angry or an atheist discredit my points in the least? Now you're just trying to poison the well. I'm quite finished with this line of discussion; I hope you are able to view things more skeptically and objectively in the future.
I am not a Christian but grew up one. One of my favorite books was Blink by Ted Dekker. In it, the main character develops the ability to see multiple potential futures based on his choice. For most of the book, he uses this to show that God cannot be omniscient, if his choice affects the future.
The explanation actually makes sense as far as apologetics tend to go. God is outside time. He doesn't "experience" the world and time the way we do. And our entire concept of free will depends on time. Choosing something is a temporal act. So basically, it would be impossible to understand the ways God works because all of our understanding in confined to this universe and God doesn't work that way.
Like I said, I don't believe this, but as a concept, I think it could actually work logically.
abcPIPPO ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 18:14:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This question implies a personified God.
In my view God doesnโt have personality or a mind. Living things have minds, living things can think, choose and feel. I think God is just a force that pushes us to action.
And while a specific drop of water may not know that there's a southward bend in the river a mile ahead, the river itself knows every turn and ebb of its entire path.
In my view God doesnโt have personality or a mind
I'm pretty sure it's been proven that anything capable of knowing literally all information in our universe, would have to literally be a universe.
Coroxn ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 20:26:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure it's been proven that anything capable of knowing literally all information in our universe, would have to literally be a universe
I mean, any 'proof' like that would revolve around nonsense assumptions on how thinking works. Unless there's a really cool experement ala 'no hidden variables' that I don't know about.
I mean, any 'proof' like that would revolve around nonsense assumptions on how thinking works
not necessarily. start with the idea that you can't encode the full set of characteristics about a single atom's full quantum state, velocity, position, etc, on anything smaller than an atom. then extrapolate up from there.
dellett ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:56:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How can you prove that's true, though? And what makes anyone sure that God would need to encode information in order to know it?
I can't. I'm not good enough at that sort of thing. But I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it was proven.
And what makes anyone sure that God would need to encode information in order to know it?
Well, touchรฉ, I suppose if god's not constrained by the laws of physics, then no proofs from physics would apply. If that's your belief, then I guess I have to bow out. :-) But now we're more in the realm of theology than logic.
Coroxn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:25:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, that in itself is an assumption that stuff like entanglement to a certain degree defies.
Exactly. I believe some way or another something had to be experienced for reasons that can't be explained, nothingness couldn't take being nothing any longer and exploded into the universe as we know it which decided to scatter at random parts of our universe and after so many years and trillions upon trillions of natural reactions it somehow our someway needed to experience itself, see itself, feel itself, hear itself, etc. which is where life came to be. Whatever the reason is, this was meant to be experienced. God is real, just not our idea of it. We have no idea, so we have to come up with our own, and that's the beauty of it, isn't it?
Even the idea of God being all powerful isn't strictly connected to the definition of God, that's just one view. For me, God doesn't do anything actively.
god not doing anything actively literally makes it the opposite of "omnipotent"... (incompetent? is that like actually the right word?).
also it would imply god has no will, therefore it has no morals, therefore worshipping it is pointless, since it couldn't reward OR punish you anyway (and if an afterlife existed, it wouldn't be up to it who enters which variation of it)...also makes the bible an entirely arbitrary work of fiction in the first place, since god has no will and therefore didn't tell anybody anything.
so...yeah...god kinda has to be actively engaged with his creation by definition, or the whole concept kinda falls apart.
sidenote: you might not be talking strictly about a biblical god, so for completeness sake i wanted to add that this holds true for all variations of "godhood" i can think of right now. if it's just a passive force you might as well call it "the standard model"
sidenote2: in case you thought about a god that isn't actively engaged, but still enforces it's "rules"/morals somehow without doing it itself, then god is basically a computer, which is both terrifying and kinda boring...
don't wanna sound like a dick or anything, you just got me thinking a lot... i find your concept interesting!
We are the closest things in our universe to our idea of God. We are the only known beings of any sort that consciously create things with original thought and ideas rather than just natural instinct. We literally created God, not vice versa. We essentially are Gods!
A rose by any other name? All the words and terms are made up. Call it blankie if you like.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 23:10:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
From a Christianโs perspective:
God created time and the concept of time, and therefore he is not bound to it. He exists in all times that have ever been or ever will be all at once. And the question you pose becomes moot because he also exists OUTSIDE of time.
That is to say, when God created this universe (which contains time) he did not confine himself to this universe.
The concept of omnipresence means that God is present in his same form at all points of time and space. He fills up all time and space, yet he also exists outside of it simultaneously.
This perspective also assumes that God is subordinate to time.
If God created EVERYTHING, than didnโt he also create time? If so, is he subjected to it? If he isnโt, than he may experience time in a non-linear way.
Also, in Christianity, thereโs not only a concept of โfree willโ, but also โGodโs natureโ. He is limited by his own nature. Hence the โcan he make a rock he couldnโt liftโ question. Well no. His qualities of โpowerโ is infinite. So he couldnโt do that. He doesnโt have absolute free will, just as we donโt.
Itโs something Iโve been asked a lot as a pastor in training by kids and teens. Iโve thought about it and thatโs what Iโve come to.
But the question becomes, when God makes a decision, is it him or his nature that determine it? Well, he is his nature. I wouldnโt differentiate the two. Just as you can ask, if a husband loves his wife, is showing that love a choice or was the choice made for him? Iโd say thereโs elements of both.
Those are my thoughts :D
Kahzgul ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:31:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The implication here is that God experiences time in the same manner that we do, constantly discovering events from one moment to the next. That is not how an omnipotent being would function, should one exist. Far more likely God would be observing the whole canvas at once, as it were, all of the time, and would be free to manipulate and change it anywhere at any moment, and know the repercussions of those changes before making them. What god does "next" to you may have been done by god at the very moment of creation.
I'm generally agnostic, and I think this is a matter of changing the word will to can.
He knows everything that has, is, and can happen. If he does exist and care, then he knows we have the options, and which option is selected dictates our place.
I appreciate your non gendering of God. Reading through the heroes journey made me realize just how bad the idea that god is gendered. God transcends gender, age, race and, most any other thing people could use to define.
This assumes there is a "next" with God. Most conceptions of God (at least in Christian theology; not sure if this is the case in other religions) see Him as being beyond time, dwelling in an eternal Now--that everything He does He does simultaneously (as we say it--there's always a problem applying human concepts and words to God) since He is not bound by time.
I can't speak for other monotheistic faiths, but some Christians (myself included) believe God to transcend our understanding of time.1 (2 Peter 3:8, for instance.) Ergo, referring what he "will do" and "has done" loses meaning from what we would define them as. All simply is as God wills. (apologies for poor explanation, I'm no theologian)
1 Note that this is not a universally agreed-upon belief; some cite the frequent vocabulary referring to God as "everlasting" and "forever" as meaning that time does somehow apply to Him.
Neither. The parameters of this thought experiment are human, and therefore do not apply to the divine. God, should it exist, functions outside the scope of our comprehension.
I think just because God is all knowing doesn't mean that He can't choose what He does. Perhaps it's like knowing every possibility that can happen, but you can choose that possibility. Or perhaps this can even be linked with the multiverse theory. He chooses everything that can happen and will happen.
God is omniscient, meaning he knows everything that there is to know.
But whenever I think of this in a religious context, I like to think that free will is a gift from god, a small spark of the divine to set us apart as his children. He doesn't know what we're going to do any better than we do. But he does know how we think and our reasons for making a decision.
I've always struggled with the beginning of the Bible (not a Christian nor a believer, but I just find it interesting). In the proces of creating the universe, earth, the sun and the moon, mankind etc. God goes through a proces of evaluation.
And God said, โLet there be light,โ and there was light. God saw that the light was good.
As I read this, this opens up for God not being 'perfect' in the sense that it makes it possible for God to reach the opposite conclusion. That God created something he/she/it decided wasn't good. It's like an experiment, but in that nature God is prone to make mistakes and therefore - again, as I read it - must in this phase either 1) Not be aware that God is omniscient and good or 2) not be so in the strict sense that the evaluating nature opens for wrong/bad choices.
Edit: I know it's a bit far from the original post, but I figured it wouldn't do any harm posting it here. So I did and I saw that it was good
I think in this scenario, we are limited by our 4 dimensional nature, and our understanding of linear time.
To such a being as this, there is no time. Everything is just another place. An example would be the wormhole aliens from DS9. "Time" isn't a concept to them in the same way we experience. If they want to visit "last thursday", they just go there.
From our perspective, they appear to move around in time, but from their perspective, they're all those places, and everywhere else they've ever been or will be, all at once.
I'm failing to explain it, but basically time is to them in the same way distances are to us. To us, it takes time to move distance. Perhaps there is some further dimension beyond time that it "takes to move in time" for an atemporal God.
TL;DR: I rambled.. but God wouldn't have free will as we understand it from our perspective, it would simply "be".
martixy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:16:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is literally an unanswerable question as it falls in the category of self-referential crap.
Similiar to how God is, by definition, contradictory to itself and the world around us (if we are to go by the srandard western definition of God).
Simply put, the theory works on 5 statements:
1. God is Omnipotent.
2. God is Omniscient.
3. God is Omnipresent.
4. God is Omnibenevolent.
5. There is suffering in the world.
The problem is caused by the fifth statement, as we experience suffering in the world, but, if statements 1 through 4 are true, then this cannot be. Simply put, due to (1); so it has the power to stop suffering, due to (2); so it has the knowledge to stop suffering, due to (3); God is present to stop the suffering, due to (4), God is all-good, and because letting us suffer is morally bad, he would stop us suffering. However, there is suffering in the world, so there is a contradiction. One could go down the vein "what is suffering?" to refute this, but then again, you would have to answer "what is suffering?".
Again, this is going by the traditional western theist idea of God, so don't be pulling out no Vishnu or Zeus or whatever to contradict this.
I would argue that free will is the cause of suffering. If one believes that humanity was created with free will, then every event is the culmination of choices made up to that point. If one cannot choose between good or bad, do either exist? Would one be able to distinguish between suffering and not suffering, if there was nothing different to experience? If there is truly no choice, then everything happens as it should; there is no good, and there is no bad, there is no control. Without control, things just happen. Entropy is neither good nor bad, it just is; there's no suffering, there are only the happenings of the universe.
But If God is omniscient, and created the universe, then we cannot have free will, as he would know our every action when he created the universe the way he did, so everything would be pre determined.
Just because God knows what is going to happen, doesn't mean everything is predetermined. God is also omnipresent, existing outside our bounds off space and time. God can see every option and choice we could make. Just because you know the outcome, doesn't mean it's not free will.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:08:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He could choose to do the suboptimal thing purely for the sake of free will, and by doing so, being free will into existence.
A better paradox would be, is the universe deterministic? Did he choose to exercise what he thought was free will because everything up to that point lead him to do so? In effect nullifying his free will?
Also you could roll dice so many times in so many random ways as to make something as close to truly random as possible and make a decision on that, but maybe even then it wouldn't be free will because if the universe is deterministic then those dice were destined to land that way.
If the universe is deterministic, is it right to punish criminals since they had no free will? A victim of destiny and circumstance? Does the nessecity of setting precedent out weigh the right of a sentient being to live?
As son as I read your post I knew I was going to write this exact response. But I still made the choice to write it, this response was not chosen for me.
Elronnd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:39:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Option one: he knows what would happen next if he didn't do anything. He can choose to do something and change that. But he's never uncertain.
Option two (kind of the same but different because it precludes free will): he knows what would happen next because he decided that's what would happen.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:18:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"The one became many so I may know myself". I could imagine omniscience + immortality getting boring. For example if you know every possible permutation of everything which can happen forever, I feel you'd eventually make it so you're not
monsto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:14:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I love how a couple of these posts have to redirect peoples attention away from the shiny, red button.
It's stunning to see how many people simply can't think abstractly.
C1ank ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:30:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But if God is as you describe it'd be at least fourth dimensional, at which point it's like a flatlander trying to discuss how a 3D being would exist using only 2D logic.
Once you start bringing that level of being into the equation you more or less have to throw out the equation because every answer is "we don't know, can't know, and will never know, because even if we could rationally describe it we'd not be able to wrap our heads around it."
I mean, I'd say yes, free will is there as much as free will would be there for any living thing, it just plays out simultaneously at all times past present and future, or at least in a non-linear fashion.
Or, if you know literally everything that ever has and ever will happen then are you really an entity anymore, or have you become information? Are you now a map, or guide, of sorts? Have you ceased to be a being that perceives information and simply become that information you perceive?
Basically, my point is that if something were at a stage of knowing everything, they'd be so beyond the limits of our comprehension that arguing these points becomes irrelevant and impossible to logically rationalize.
My perception of god is much like the Tao, as in the Chinese tradition of 'Taoism'. It is being. It is everything. It is consciousness itself, manifested in every conceivable and inconceivable form. It is all knowing. It's not as in a 'he', not even an 'it' but it is just pure being. It just is. Non action, everything and nothing. Forwards and backwards, up and down. Black and white. Pure stillness.
Even without omniscience, can one really have free will?
What does it mean to decide? Did you decide to decide, or did your decision just happen? Behind every decision is there not the spontaneous arising of that decision?
The concept of a God would be to beyond these concepts, so they would both have and not have, and not both have and not have free will. It's how trinitarian logic works, and if you can make the leap of faith that God exists, then it makes perfect logical sense.
I do not agree with the philosophy that God "KNOWS EVERYTHING". It's simply false. I think God has a sub-conscious, like us, that automatically handles all the fundamentals of existence (like breathing, heart pumping, etc.) In a similar way, YOUR BRAIN KNOWS EVERYTHING about your body, even though you don't know everything about your body consciously. Which in a way, your brain is omniscient, but only within the scope of your body, so it is with God.
salty3 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:45:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If God sees everything, does he also smell and taste everything? ;)
[deleted] ยท -10 points ยท Posted at 19:38:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consider the case of a woman walking through the desert with a full canteen of water.
Unbeknownst to her, a man secretly replaces her water with sand.
Further down the path, unbeknownst to her and without communicating with the first man, a second man steals her canteen.
The question is, who is morally responsible for her death of thirst. If the first man had not filled her canteen with sand, she still would have died of thirst, if the second man had not stolen the canteen, she would still die of thirst. It's an interesting case of a moral responsibility case which is overexplained. It seems that neither man is individually responsible, but instead they are together collectively responsible.
This is just an interesting problem that I came across recently in a seminar on Free Will and Moral Responsibility. It seems straightforward to say that the first man is responsible, but this doesn't seem to sufficiently explain the scenario.
But if you consider the causal chain, the first seems no more morally responsible than the second. Both were under the impression that they were going to lead to the death of the woman.
Theyโre both morally in the wrong. However, by chance, the first man was responsible for her death. Had he not done anything, then by chance, the second man would have been responsible. Both assholes, both morally repugnant. The first one, in the case outlined above, signed her death warrant.
I disagree here, I think that since neither of them could have changed the outcome of the woman dying by not acting, neither of them can be held individually accountable. As a unit, they can, and therefore they can only be considered guilty as a unit.
This is of course, from a philosophical standpoint. In actuality, the first man is guilty as you pointed out.
There is not enough data given to determine if anyone has done anything morally wrong. All we know is there are two thieves and a careless person. She can lie in that sand blaming whoever she wants but there was only one player careless enough to walk into a desert without verifying their canteen. Sheโs responsible.
It's a thought experiment. They are meant to be taken at face value to "distill" a question to make it easier to answer. You aren't meant to look for more information about the specific situation.
Both were under the impression that they were going to lead to the death of the woman.
Sure, but moral ambiguity has nothing to do with responsibility.
Both are morally reprehensible, but only one is responsible.
The dude who stole the canteen did not cause her death, the man who replaced the water with sand did. Sure, dude #2 may have intended to kill her, and that will put him in the same moral grouping as dude #1... but dude #2 is still not responsible for her death.
If you intended to kill a person and then acted on killing that person where the outcome was predefined as well death (in other words there were no other forms of hydration and the desert was too large to cross without at least one drink).
Then what does it matter which order the actions came in?
That changes the question. The initial question is "Who is morally responsible", which asher18 replies both. In your example, both would be morally responsible, or morally "wrong". The degree to which would be different, but they would still both be wrong.
Yeah, I think the interesting part is that they don't seem individually responsible, but instead they're responsible collectively. It's sort of a unique shared responsibility. Assigning blame to either of them seems to lack some fundamental explanatory power.
Limmy92 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:25:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the problem with this dilemma is that we are guided by law to make some objective decision.
Law is guided by morality; It looks to be objective but is in fact arbitrary. Objectively, both men are responsible for the woman's death, though their individual motives could differ, making one's actions worse than the other. This need to be objective confuses the conclusion. Both men done a shitty thing and the woman is dead. If both men needed the water to survive are they less morally responsible than if they had had plenty of water? Are they deterministically victims of circumstance? Is the first thief responsible for the second thiefs death as well because he knowingly replaced water with sand? How can he be morally responsible for killing a man he never encountered, nor directly intervened?
The world is absurdly complex and trying to be objective is just part of the human condition. I don't think it helps. This is the strongest argument I can make to back the cliche conclusion, it is what it is.
They are actually both individually responsible for her death. If the first man acted alone, she would have died because her water was replaced with sand. If the second man acted alone, she would have died because her canteen was stolen. They each took separate action against her to leave her without water in the desert, and therefore they are both morally responsible for her death. The fact that they acted in concurrence with one another is just coincidental and does not relieve them of this moral responsibility.
well i think it's a mistake to think of guilt as a binary state:
I'd say the first man carries a greater guilt, because he just about guaranteed her death. the second man merely attempted to kill her, but she was doomed at that point...
I don't know what you mean when you say that neither man is individually responsible. The first is wholly responsible because he replaced her water with sand. Whether stolen or not by the second man, the first man would have caused her death.
But the first man DID replace her water with sand! The story states that as a fact. The question didn't consider the possibility that the first man didn't replace the water with sand.
i gave this some thoght and came to the conclusion that it is still the first man mans fault entirely. If we made the scenario to something of equal importance like a sick woman with her medicine. If the first man replaces said medicine with sugar pills instead of the actual medicine, then the second comes and steals it. The first is still responsible, because he took away the only life saving option that could've saved the woman and replaced it with something of no value. Whether or not the second man stole from her or not the woman still would've died with or without the stolen sugar pills.
Sure, but if the first man hadn't done anything she still would have died, his participation was not necessary, and certainly not sufficient, to cause her death.
If you think about it the first guys responisble for 2 deaths because the second guy clearly needed that water too. By stealing it himself he condemned both of them to death.
By replacing the water with sand, he is responsible for only one of their deaths because someone was going to die either way. If he didn't do it, then either the woman dies by not having water or the man dies by not stealing her water.
Or they shared and potentialy both survived had he not stolen the water to begin with there was still the possibility for change regardless of the seconds mans actions
The second guy was always going to steal her water. It's one of the assumptions of the thought experiment, so we can throw out them possibly sharing. My hypothetical situation of the first man not replacing the water is to prove that by replacing the water he is responsible for only one death even if both people die because one of them was already going to die.
Whos to say the second man wouldnt have a change of heart or feel guilty about his actions by eliminating that possibility he removes the opportunity it presents
If he stole the bottle when it had sand in it thinking it was water, then why would he act any differently if it was actually water? His knowledge is the same either way, so his actions will be, too.
Upon stealing it and discovering its sand theres nothing he can do but if it had been water then he may have felt guilt about what hed done or realised that if he shared it maybe both would survive.
Sorry I didn't understand what you were saying before, but that's actually a very interesting point. This is the first thing with this scenario I'm not sure about. I still think they're equally evil even though only the first guy is responsible because I don't want to keep adding more and more to the situation. Like if a third thief stole the bottle, he's not worse just because the woman and the second thief might have shared the water.
Its cool and i think your right the more you add to it the more it defeats the point but as a closed system pf just 3 people its kind of a case of not being able to comment on what "might" have happened after all the second thief could just as well have kept the water himself. Plus if there was only enough water for one person to survive then is it necissarily evil to do what you have to in order to survive? Sure you condemn someone else by your actions but you also spare your loved ones the pain of loosing you and at the same time have your whole life ahead of you to do as much good pr bad as you want. For all you know the person you stole from is a serial killer and you just did the world a favour.
Interesting. How about we change the scenario slightly to test assumptions?
What if the woman knew the first man replaced the water with sand?
What if what she thought was water was actually poison and the men tried to save her life by replacing it with sand and then taking it from her altogether?
What if it was actually water but the men thought it was poison?
Writing this it seems like the question is: Is this about the intent or the result?
Following the intend path, what if the first man intended to kill but would have enabled the woman to live if the second man, who intended to save her, hadn't intervened in a way that resulted in her death? Is the first man responsible for her death?
Take the same scenario with the result path. Is the second man responsible for her death?
You're hitting on one of the fundamental debates in ethics here, which is awesome. That is, is moral responsibility associated with intent or consequence.
All of these are interesting variations.
If the woman knew, it seems more reasonable to blame the first man alone, but fundamentally I don't think the moral blame shifts at all.
If it was poison... Here it seems they had good intent, but merely replaced one fatal thing with another, and so are not responsible for her death because the initial link of the causal chain was unassisted with them. All they did was alter her state, not change her fate in a harmful way.
If they thought it was poison, then that is one of the more complicated cases. Their intent was good, but their action caused harm (legally, this is what usually matters but law is not synonymous with morality).
I think morally speaking it's always about intent. If I fully intended to kill a man but missed my shot, then I'm no different than the guy that didn't miss, morally speaking. Now I'm not a murderer and he is but in my eyes that's not a morality thing, which is where I think my views differ from someone else who believes it's based on the result. I dont view the result of something as the morality part of it simply because of how many variables goes into the actual outcome of an event.
Say a man tries to save a drowning child, but fails. Can it be said that he did something good? If you consider his intentions, then yes. If you consider the results, then the answer is no.
Now imagine you wanted to support that man and said that his effort alone was a good deed. You don't want to be harsh on the fella. But on the next day, you learn that another man tried to poison someone, but failed due to not getting the ingredients right. If you've chosen to comfort the previous man before, then by that logic you should forgive this man for trying to poison someone - after all, no harm was done.
What we can take away from it is that morality is a malleable thing and is mostly affected by our emotions than our logic.
what no that's backwards. if you comfort the first man, then you are saying that intentions matter and not results. which mean you think the second man is guilty because his intentions were to kill.
If you've chosen to comfort the previous man before, then by that logic you should forgive this man for trying to poison someone - after all, no harm was done.
follows from the examples you give. Let me try to demonstrate:
For ease of reference, let's call the person who tries to save a drowning child, but fails, Adam and the person who tries to poison someone, but fails because he's bad at poison-making, Bill.
If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that we would forgive Bill if we focus on results. After all, Bill didn't kill anyone. However, the quoted portion above suggests that you could comfort Adam by the same logic, i.e.: by focusing on the results.
But that's actually the focus that is not comforting to Adam. The result of his attempt to save a drowning child is, well, a dead child. So actually what comforts Adam is looking at the intent, the very same focus by which we can (rightly) consider Bill morally reprehensible.
All this is to say that, in both cases you pose, looking at intent gets you the right result (i.e. Adam=good, Bill=bad), whereas looking at the results gets you the wrong answer (i.e. Adam and Bill are morally equivalent!). There's no moral dilemma here at all.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:52:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Morally, their intent is what's important, not the outcome. That's why "attempted murder" is still a crime.
But actual murder does have a worse punishment than attempted murder, right?
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:52:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not familiar with the specific law regarding sentencing in either case but I think it does. Which seems strange to me, to account for competence in an issue that should deal only with intent.
The thing is that the second man had the intent to steal the woman's water - he didn't know it was sand. Had the first man not done his deed, the woman's death would've been caused by the second one.
By stealing her water, the first man ensures her death. He is morally wrong and responsible.
From here, she is only a woman with a bucket of sand. The second has only stolen a bucket of sand. Morally wrong, yes (because of the implication) but not morally responsible.
Related: if a firing squad shoots a person condemned to death, one of the people on the firing squad has a blank. No one knows which person has a blank. This gives each person on the firing squad a slight "out".
I like to think about blame a lot. I've come to the conclusion that a thing that happens (woman dying of thirst) takes a lot of other things happening, (she goes out in the desert, man replaces water with sand, desert is hot because of sun, sun exists because of gravity, woman exists because womans dad boned womans mom, man exists because of previous reason and so on and so forth.) to make the first thing happen, woman dies of thirst. So its a bunch of peoples and things faults. Not the man that did the stole the empty canteen though.
The first man is responsible. He stole the valuable, life-saving water and replaced it with sand. The second guy only stole the sand. He is morally deficient for stealing the sand, but morally responsible for her death? No.
In that scenario, the woman is also partly to blame for her own death. She went in to the desert, presumably alone, with only one canteen and trusted both men enough that they were able to steal her water and sand without her noticing. I've never been to the desert, but I know I'd take more than one fucking canteen if I were to go.
"...if the second man had not stolen the canteen, she would still die of thirst." That answers your question. First man is morally responsible for her death, second man is just a thieving asshole. Chance and circumstance determine a lot, like when a drunk driver kills someone while another, just as drunk driver, makes it home without incident.
I only got a minor in philosophy, so this may be a rather mediocre explanation. But what killed me, and I never read any satisfactory explanation of, pertained to how quickly our language fails us.
So like the professor goes "what's this" and points to a chair. "That's a chair" says everyone.
Why?
It basically doesn't matter what you say, you can't give a satisfactory answer. "It has four legs and a back," meets "so it could a unique table, but nobody suspects this is an odd table."
So then you get into like, well you understand objects via their connection and interaction with other objects. "So it's a chair because we sit on it" is met, annoyingly and unsurprisingly with "you can sit on a rock, but you never mistake a rock for a chair."
It goes on like this. You get into Plato and "universals and particulars" and I to this day have no idea what his point was. The allegory of the cave isn't hard to understand, but it also doesn't really explain anything in a satisfying way.
You can get into phenomenology, which in my experience is a cruel joke meant to make you feel insane. And then we got into Heidegger, who takes the onus off the object in question by making the observer an object personified (kinda?) and I have no fucking idea at all. Being & Time is over my ears. I sort of, KINDA OF, get what he's going for, but how he might be correct entirely eludes me.
So I have half a degree in philosophy. And if you ask me, philosophically, what makes a chair a chair, I just shrug and say "that's the word we picked I guess, if it's stupid and works it's not that stupid."
I think I'm missing a key angle here because I'm not quite getting this one.
To play devil's advocate; we see the chair and know it's a chair. We qualify it as a chair rather than a table because we recognize the design of the thing and it matches what we know of a chair. It could be a unique table, and we would have made the simple mistake due to it checking off more boxes as a chair when we look at it. Had this been the case I would argue that our perception has failed us (due to the counter-intuitive design of the table), not our language.
We don't mistake a rock from a chair because we know that a chair is something designed for sitting, whereas a rock was not.
I think the point is simply that you can poke holes in any explanation. Like, because of the nature of art (I GUESS?) you could design a gray blob intended for sitting, and it looks just like a rock. It may be so convincing that you mistake it for just a rock. BUT NO IT'S A CHAIR!
Basically, I think if there is any reasonable action to take on the issue, it's along the lines of what others have said. It's a quirk of language and not of reality. Like, because our language can't adequately describe something doesn't mean in reality we have nothing.
Like many philosophical things, it's just sort of an interesting thought experiment.
There are categories of form, function, and intention. If I make a chair that cannot hold the weight of a sitter, it fails in function, but not form and intention. If I sit on a table, it is a chair.
One example of this I ran into a lot back in high school in some discussions I had with a friend is about art.
What exactly is art? Itโs very hard to define since you can almost always find some specific case where your definition doesnโt fit and youโd still categorize that thing as art.
The only characteristic we could come up with that we couldnโt find a disproving case was that art demands human interaction.
You can say that a chimp can make a painting, but Iโd argue that the painting only is art because weโre there to see it and assign that value to it. If the chimp created something like this in nature, without us to look at it, it wouldnโt be art.
Likewise, a naturally occurring sound or event isnโt art until someone comes along and says โthis is artโ, so itโs that naming that creates the art.
But that was it, there was no other idea we could have about how to define it that didnโt fall apart with some example.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 11:28:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Modern "art" is not actually art so your question falls apart immediately.
I think the real issue it raises isnt so much about things like chairs which are easily identified and communicated with another person. Its more about how we all think we know what is meant by a chair but we all have different impressions and ideas in our mind of what that means. At this very moment you and I are thinking of chairs but many of their qualities in our imagination are different. But they are similar enough to convey meaning such as in these comments about them.
Whats gets harder from there is communicating about things that can be quite different for us. A pretty easy and obvious example are feelings. My concept of love and yours are very different based on our experiences with love and loved ones. Matbe better to discuss would he hate. Maybe you only ever heard that word in a very serious context like "I hate murder" or "I hate Hitler". Then you meet me and one day I say "i hate tacos". I have not adequately communicated what I mean to you because you think I'm implying tacos are some of the most degenerate, evil things in existence.
Sorry for the long post, im bored.
Kahzgul ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:45:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're on the right track. Language is a construct an as such it follows from agreed upon definitions. "Ohio" is a state in North America if you're speaking English, or it's a common greeting if you're speaking Japanese. What you call a thing doesn't matter as long as everyone involved understands the meaning of the words you're using.
What makes that a chair and this a rock is that we're speaking English and those are what we call those things in this language. No more, no less. It's an abstraction.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:47:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It can be a chair or a table if you want it to be. Chair and table are just abstract forms we label things with. We might stud our toe in a pitch black room on the table, and say, "fuck that fucking chair!" And yet it actually be the table. However in the moment, the table is just as much a chair as any chair we've ever seen.
Point is, chair and table are thoughts, in reality they are wood, screws, and nails, paint, whatever. One man's chair could be another man's table.
It is a chair because we have defined that to be a chair. It has no inherent "chairness", but our language identifies it as such for the sake of communication and clarity.
Kahzgul ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 19:43:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the right answer. Language is an abstraction we've attached meaning to in order to convey meaning quickly to one another. One can describe the properties of a chair or not, and the chair remains either way. It may be called "An Ultraluxe Tiffany Tuscany Galaxy Recliner" or it may be called simply "chair" but the calling it of those words has no impact on the actual condition of the object in question, but rather only has an impact on how we communicate with one another about that object.
In short, the thing that makes it a chair is that we've decided, in this language, to call that thing a chair.
This is missing the point. The challenge isn't to explain why the object is called a chair, that's a boring etymological question, but rather to explain how exactly everyone managed to identify it as belonging to the set of objects that we call "chairs".
Kahzgul ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:00:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Which, entirely, has to do with the definition of the word, "chair."
This is missing the point. No one came into the room and told them that the object is a chair. There is no specific reference "in our language" that picks out that particular object as being a chair. They all managed to see an object for the first time and realize that it was a chair.
Aikeko ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:36:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not a philosophical question at all, it's a case of how we learn and apply our knowledge to make assumptions and predictions. That chair was a chair because it was similar to hundreds of others that we've seen and known to be chair. It's not that we inherently recognize chairs, we are simply making assumptions and collectively agreeing on a purpose of a widely-used object. This is exactly why /r/whatisthisthing and the similar are a thing.
That's just begging the question. The problem is how we identify chairs in general, not a particular chair. How did you know all the previous chairs were chairs? By virtue of what is a chair a chair?
Aikeko ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:01:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By a lot of people agreeing to it being one. Things come in and out of use, there are people now who won't be able to identify a floppy disk because it's no longer in use. When something is not in use, the collective knowledge of it's purpose fades away and we can't tell what it is anymore because no one identified it for us.
As for identification in particular, there is a comment higher up that explains how we basically have a "list" of qualities that we "check" when identifying something. There are word games based entirely around guessing objects from descriptions of either elements or uses of said objects.
Plato's Theory of Forms didn't really survive past Aristotle and the chair thing gives you a sense of why. What makes a chair a chair has more to do with neuroscience than with metaphysics. There are no "chairs" out in the universe; when we ask ourselves what makes a chair we're just peering into the messy, complicated, ever-shifting goings-on within our own brains as they try to relate things to other things.
If it makes you feel better I'm a philosophy grad student and I still don't understand Heidegger.
That does indeed make me feel better. I really wanted to get it. I couldn't even wrap my head around the framework though. I'm not sure I ever got deep into section 3, which I think was his vaguely nazi-sympathetic application of the whole thing. I could be mistaken though, I took classes over ten years ago.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:35:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but there is a logical connection between the amount of protons, and where it resides in the periodic table. Chair is much more ambiguous. You are really just splitting hairs though. A chair is a chair because we perceive it as a chair, but we might go sit on it and it is actually cardboard. It was still a chair to us in the past.
It's all perception. Periodic table, even though it follows a simple logical form, is still an abstract system we overplayed to better understand physical materials. Hydrogen in really only an atom which has one proton, everything else is abstract.
That's interesting. I think we need more information though. There's a difference between a Platonist who believes that somewhere in another realm there's a platonic ideal of a chair, and a Platonist who thinks things like "numbers are mind-independent." I'd guess there are few of the former and many of the latter.
Ascetue ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:20:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, not even Plato thought that there was a form of a chair. Those were always demonstrations. Platonic Forms were always of natural kinds, which is where they are becoming philosophically useful today (e.g. David Armstrong)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:43:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ironic how some philosophers think there is a perfect form of philosophy to strive towards.
It seems the Platonic theory of forms did survive past Aristotle, there are philosophers like Aquinas and Augustinus that attempted to expand on it and it seems to have a relation to Christian thought.
I think, while there is a physical element to "a chair" there may also be a metaphysical element. Now i'm not a philosophy grad so please tear me a part where I'm wrong.
There is an ideal, perfect, eternal chair that exists outside of our reality. Each chair that we see is a representation of that ideal. Language is a tool for how we describe what we experience but if we didn't have language and tried out 2 different chairs, we would intuitively feel that one is somehow better than the other, more firm, more beautiful, etc. There is a standard of chairness that comes from some sort of intuition, not an external label.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:41:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is a perfect chair, but it's only abstract. In the physical world there are more perfect chairs, but no perfect chair, until you come up with the absolute perfect chair. At least in theory anyways. In reality your idea of perfection is both idosycratic, and constantly changing.
It would be possible to actually make you own personal perfect form of something if you had the time, and your idea of what that perfection was never changed. However this is fairly unrealistic so we are always stuck with more or less perfect chairs to compare.
We should strive for perfection, but not obsess over it. It is the ultimate goal but ultimately unreachable.
Our idea of perfection may always be changing but only because we're chasing some actualized eternal ideal, the ideal doesn't change and by definition it can't but our methods of trying to represent it in reality do change. No one knows what this perfect ideal chair actually would look like although there is Platos idea that we saw this ideal before we were born and when we "learn" about it, we are really just remembering what we already saw pre-birth...
Yes, perfection is ultimately unreachable in this reality but you are right, we should actively strive for it in spite of this. Otherwise, what's the alternative? We just choose to be victims of entropy and chaos?
Too much Perfection will create people begging for chaos just to see something unpredictable happen but to much chaos will destroy everything.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:06:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree with you perfectly.
martixy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:21:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Modern machine learning gives us an interesting new perspective here. Also, answers the question in a pretty good way.
I would argue this is a failing of dictionaries, not language. The problem lies in that our definitions are far more complicated than standard definitions go into.
In the example of a chair there is a whole series of qualities a chair must have for it to be a chair, but these are rarely explained in s dictionary but happen subconsciously in our heads
There is a similar theory we went over in an English class that deals with the concept that everything is relevant simply because we assign it relevancy. A table is only a table because we call it one. The moment we assign it a new name, it ceases to be a table.
I would say a chair is a chair because it is more chair-like than everything else. It's hard to define what counts as a "chair", but everyone has an idea of what a chair should be.
In my head, the most stereotypical chair is 1.) something made by humans for sitting on, 2.) usually constructed of sturdy materials to facilitate sitting on it and general reuse, 3.) designed to fit a singular humanoid sitting, 4.) has a backing for support and/or comfort, and therefore generally has a "L" or reverse L shape somewhere in the silhouette.
It doesn't need legs or padding, though it can have those. A chair only useable once would be a really inconvenient chair, so much so that I would suspect it to be something made for an art gallery or performance art. It can be small or large, but it looks like it can fit a humanoid sitting. If it doesn't have a back then it is a Stool and if you sell it to me as a chair I will be mad at you. Something designed in fantasy for chairs for other forms of creature-- well, in my experience, they often look more like lounges. And I'd rather call them that than a "dragon chair" or what have you.
I'm sure you could find holes in my argument, just like a "featherless biped" describes a plucked chicken as much as it does humans. But that isn't the point. The way we construct ideas and concepts operates on a thematic proximity, so far as I've seen research and theories tell-- so therefore our definitions must be proximity-based as well if we ever really want to reach a satisfying end to that rabbit hole.
Now that I'm reading the other comments, it looks like other smart people have already described this. Oh well. I spent time on this, haha.
This definition is not satisfactory for everybody. If you take the same object that we call a chair and put it in a world without any people, is it suddenly not a chair? Most people think of its 'chairness' as a property belonging to the object itself, rather than a property of our attitude toward the object.
Perhaps the definition I gave is imperfect. In fact, not everyone will perfectly agree on what qualifies as a chair. But you can still make a definition that includes everything which is inarguably a chair.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:27:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its actually simple. It isn't a chair. We just decided it was a chair. Collectively and individually. You could make something that looks very much like a chair, but is actually a table, with a back board.
What it actually is is just wood or metal or whatever. Our minds perceive it as a chair. If an alien saw it, then it probably would just think it was a strange sculpture of wood or something.
The chair part isn't real. Its abstract. It exist only in the mind. For all intents and purposes however, to us humans, it's a chair.
I dropped in Intro to Philosophy course in college because of this statement from my teacher. Maybe you can help me understand what the hell she was talking about 30+ years later: "A tree is real. But the idea of the tree is more real than the tree itself for the tree can be destroyed, but the idea of the tree can never be destroyed." I went straight to drop/add and picked up a PE class instead.
It's from Plato. It's called the allegory of the cave. Basically, if you were attempting to quantify a hierarchy of all the things, ideas are at the top. Use the trees. I tell my son about trees, but then in his lifetime all the trees die. He can still communicate the idea of trees down to his son, who will never actually encounter one. So in that sense the idea is "more real" than the thing it represents. I'm not sure "more real" is a great way to put it, but yeah, that's the general idea.
I don't think it was even an option when I was there in the 2004, much less a requirement. I had to take a large amount of whack job "general ed" type courses (I got credits for a course about over the counter medicines lol), but never a gym class.
Kahzgul ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:49:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Of course, Plato was wrong. Ideas can be lost if they are not shared, distorted if they are not understood, and simply forgotten if not kept fresh in the mind. Ideas cannot be destroyed in the same way as objects, but they are no more permanent.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:11:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"So what did you learn in school today, Johnny?"
"Well, uhh, that thing there that yer sittin' on, um... it's a chair."
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:35:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A chair is defined as a raised horizontal surface that was constructed by a human with the sole intent of being sit on by itself or another human. Chairs are characterized by having a horizontal surface that is commonly cushioned or conforms to the human body to maximize human comfort. This surface has four vertical supports that elevate the sitting surface off the ground at a comfortable height to both sit in and stand from for the average sized fully grown human of a particular region, but this number of supports can vary, as well as the size for its intended demographic. Another major characteristic of a chair is a vertical surface nearly connected nearly perpendicular to the horizontal sitting surface for the human to recline on if so chosen. Anything can be defined if you try hard enough, I donโt like this philosophical idea.
I had a friend go on a 10 minute rant about how water isn't wet because wet is a sensation, not a state. At the end of it my other friend turned to him, looked him dead in the eyes, and said "water is wet you fucking dumbass." One of the funniest things I've seen, but it goes to show that "oh yeah I can get real meta" is no fun
"What's this?"
"It's a chair, ya dingus."
"Why?"
"Cuz we say it is."
"But what defines it as a chair?"
"Us saying it's a chair. Really, everything can just be defined as 'the universe', we just like to give things names. You could have two identical teddy bears, but one child would name theirs Ted, while the other names it Larry, the former child may see it as a simple teddy, whilst the latter sees theirs as a genuine living creature, the only difference is how we choose to define them."
"But what is the universe?"
"... Fuck off mate."
A โchairโ is just a word that we came up with to describe it right? So what about other words for things to sit on? We have a โstoolโ for example. What about a rock that was carved into a chair? Then itโs both a chair and a rock. What if it was made to be both a chair or a small table?
My point is it doesnโt matter what we call it because the words for them just describe it using what we know about the objects. You canโt really poke holes in it if it could be multiple things just depending on any one persons description of it. Not to mention how much languages changes to mean new things and adapt to โmodernโ objects.
This is kind of interesting, because the ability to use abstract reasoning to classify an object is basically what makes us different from machines. There is no exact criteria to differentiate a chair from other furniture (a weird table for instance) but humans, even young children, can do it immediately
ccdfa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:49:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you like this concept you should read Simone Weil's essay on Human Personality. She was a Platonist and describes this problem rather well. If you don't want to read the whole thing just look for the prison of language somewhere in there.
"you can sit on a rock, but you never mistake a rock for a chair."
A rock is a chair as long as you're sitting on it. A chair can be a weapon as long as you're in the WWE.
Tothler ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:23:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have a wanky way of thinking about this:
Any thing (I use thing to mean either a tangible object, action, or concept) has a "true name": itself. The only exactly precise name a thing can have is itself. Any other name, be it sounds or shapes, is an imperfect representation, because it lacks some data about the actual thing -- and there is no point creating a secondary name which encompasses every possible aspect of a thing, because it would by necessity contain at least as much data as the thing itself. Secondary names are the shorthand we use to make language possible.
Any thing we have not given a secondary name can be identified only by its true name. For example: in mathematics there is an uncountable infinity of functions that are not named, except by their definition.
And when you try to communicate with someone you don't share a language with, you resort using to the "true name."
The answer is "Because society has decided it's a chair"
The word "chair" is meaningless. What is conveyed is an object that exhibits certain physical characteristics, has certain social context, and exists as a reference between wide ranges of individuals.
The word "chair" is merely a system of signs that conveys an intangible meaning, packed with social context, which other people must decode.
So like the professor goes "what's this" and points to a chair. "That's a chair" says everyone. Why?
How come you can't argue that it fits the definition of a chair? Any object could go under multiple names if it satisfies multiple definitions.
For example: *points to car* -- This is a car, because it fulfills every constraint for being labeled a car. It's also a vehicle, because it fulfills every constraint of being labeled a vehicle.
I took a Linguistics/Semantics course in college and on one of the first days we got into groups with the task to define simple words. Our word was "on." And after 30 minutes and much debate, us four college-educated adults could not come up with a satisfactory definition of "on." A very humbling experience.
And then we got into Heidegger, who takes the onus off the object in question by making the observer an object personified (kinda?)
You're on the track, but that's not quite it. Heidegger argues that we understand things because we, as Dasein, are in-the-world necessarily. In order to be in the world, we understand it. He talks later in Being and Time about the fore-structure of understanding, which basically states that in order to understand anything there are things we have to know a priori.
Further, we primarily understand things in how we concern ourselves with them and how they connect with other objects in a totality of relations (kind of like how you explained in your OP).
I think the point of that thought exercise is to realize that humans are able to very efficiently hold on to ambiguous concepts and use them in place of static definitions when those would otherwise fail.
Shouldn't the criteria for a definition be the relation of the object to the human experience? So we can say that a chair it a four-legged platform with a backrest designed as a place to sit? Anything else seems like mental masturbation, or conceptualizing beyond necessity.
This might be the right answer, but it has it's own implications to deal with. For one thing, if the same object existed in a world without any people, it would suddenly not be a chair anymore. In general people think of its 'chairness' as a property belonging to the object itself, rather than a property of our attitude toward the object.
"Chairness" is a grouping of certain attributes, and the grouping itself is done by humans. If everyone died, there would be nobody to conceptualize it as a chair, but it would still be a chair, i.e. it would preserve the attributes by which we identify it.
We can still say it was made and was used by humans as a piece of furniture to facilitate sitting, if everybody died some time after. Then it is still a chair. On the other hand, in a universe where humans had never even existed, it would indeed be meaningless to define a chair as a chair, not to mention that it could never be created in the first place.
If the object is defined by certain properties that are merely stipulated by humans, then we run into other problems.
Idk what you mean by properties being stipulated. The properties are observed and grouped based on observation of similarities and differences from other objects. So, the definition of a chair is not subjective, but it is in relation to human beings.
The concept of Qualia; the actual experience of color/sound/taste/sensations/etc.
It is often demonstrated via a thought problem: Imagine a woman named Mary has lived in a black-and-white room with a black-and-white TV to interact with the world outside her entire life. Everything is black and white from food to clothes, etc. She learns everything there is to learn about the color red: wavelength, qualities, etc. She is then shown a red apple; For the first time ever actually she has seen the color red. Has she gained some new knowledge about the quality of "red" by seeing it and experiencing it? If you say yes, that she as experienced some new quality of "red" that she did not have before, that is qualia.
Another simple thought problem for this would be to imagine someone who has been blind or color blind their entire life, who, following surgery, gains proper vision. Have they gained some new form of knowledge about the world by experiencing sight/colored sight? If yes, that thing experienced is qualia.
mme13 ยท 129 points ยท Posted at 18:03:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is there an argument that you haven't gained a new form of knowledge in either of those cases?
Yes. The long and short of arguments against qualia are that they are effectively "gap" arguments. WE don't know how the brain gives rise to qualia, therefore there may be some other thing causing it. There's no reason to believe it isn't still just a physical phenomena.
This seems like it would only be feasible if you had an infinitely powerful brain capable of extrapolating and retaining everything from all the information given about "red".
Yes - it's a very well known, very debated thought experiment by Frank Jackson. The short answer ELI5 is that (among other suggestions) people have posited things along the lines of saying that rather than gaining new knowledge per se, you actually gain a new ability. Another possible response is that you did learn something new, but the subject of that knowledge is old. Or in other words, you've just learnt a new way of presenting some old knowledge, so you don't need to say that something exists above and beyond that to explain the new knowledge, namely, the qualia.
Super interesting argument that can really get you down the rabbit hole. Have a look here if you want a better idea of the proper responses, as they're much much more nuanced than I've laid out and there are a bunch of different versions:
Is it? Isnt ot just like learning to drive? You can read all the books about driving but once you get behind the wheel you are gaining new experience. Right? Or have i missed the point entirely?
Kahzgul ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:38:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
you seem to be talking about the difference between knowing the path and walking the path. The experience of something is absolutely different from the experience of being told about something.
martixy ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:09:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not a thought experiment.
There was a recent TIL or something, about people without sight being given sight and not being able to recognize shapes they were intimately familiar with by touch.
This new perception is the pattern of brain connections that results in the perception of red as a colour, in her visual cortex. This would be different from how knowledge of the wavelength and other similar abstract facts are stored. She has now gained a new unique representation of the colour red her brain can call upon. That would be Qualia in this case.
That's one of my favorite thought experiments, so glad someone mentioned it. It's fascinating to think about the separation between the actual nature of our experiences - the qualia - and the neurological properties of our brains. I believe that consciousness is a direct consequence of the various properties/structure of our brains, but I also don't believe that the qualia of our experiences can be boiled down to those physical properties - even if they are causally linked. Real mind-bender.
Azuaron ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:38:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If this is from birth, there's actually the strong probability that Mary's visual cortex never developed the ability to see colors, so she sees the apple in grayscale. We know this from very strange experiments with kittens.
The book "The Giver" put this into perspective for me except they were never taught about the colors they are surrounded by, so to most people there is no discernible difference between red and blue
We discovered that blind people given sight will not be able to make the connection between the way something felt and the way something looks.
You could give them a circle, 5 pointed star, and square to feel. They could be intimately equated with their feel. Once they gain sight they would not be able to know which is which just from sight.
If you say yes, that she as experienced some new quality of "red" that she did not have before, that is qualia.
I am going to say "no". The only thing different is her experience of the color red. There is no new information given to Mary but she has a new way of experiencing it.
But now she is armed with the knowledge of what red looks like and can identify it without being told that what she is looking at is red. This is helpful when looking at things that are improperly colored (a lemon that has been painted red for instance when she has been told that lemons are yellow) and upon seeing entirely new things.
I think that its confusing a few kinds of knowledge. You can be taught about gyroscopic forces and told about the process of pedaling, but does that make you know how to ride a bike? Your second paragraph actually has a question that was answered: if a blind person can now see, can they recognize a cube/sphere/pyramid if they knew how the shape felt? and the answer is no. And to me that would make sense. It'd be like if you've never had jello and just seen pictures and had it described. You might get a decent idea of it descriptively but the knowledge is different. It's not that jello has a jello-ness quality to it, its that the descriptive quality doesn't capture the whole picture, its an inadequacy of the communication, not an inability to transfer that information. A computer-neural link could potentially capture all of that fine grain information so that you can feel a recorded sensation but there isn't any feasible way to describe an experience fully, its all just shades of approximation. We feel more than we can describe with our current tools, that doesn't mean that there are qualities that can't be described.
After watching Altered Carbon, I started thinking about the idea that our consciousness doesn't persist. That even if an exact copy of a person's mind were made, and could be 'uploaded' into a replacement body, that would still be a new individual. The consciousness wouldn't continue streaming from the original host, should said host die. The new individual would believe they are the original, and for all intents and purposes, they would be, but the actual original person would not exist anymore. They touch on this at one point during the series when there are two copies of one character, and they're discussing "which memories to keep", to which one of them comments about it being an interesting way to describe who's going to die.
nevynn ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 18:12:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now apply this concept to the Star Trek universe's beaming technology. Pretty much every being in that universe is only a few days old at most...
It reminds me of an old TVO cartoon where this scientist is showing off his 'teleportation' machine. But it turns out that it's actually just a matter duplicator that destroys the original. I can't find it online at the moment, but for a kids short cartoon clip it was remarkably gruesome.
And that's why I wouldn't dare use a teleportation device if it existed, say if how they teleport is disintegrating you and rebuilding you. Even though it would be the coolest power to have.
Someone made a quantum mechanical proof that basically states that itโs impossible to create an exact copy of someone. Not that we will never develop the technology to do it, but that such a copy existing would violate the laws of the universe. What this means for philosophy is that the person who is a copy of you is genuinely a different person. They just look almost exactly like you and with your same memories.
At the same time though, apparently itโs theoretically possible to perform a form of teleportation that swaps you with the components of matter required to create a copy of you. The stream of
of consciousness shouldnโt get interrupted because itโs actual teleportation. Of course only science will tell if such a thing will ever be accessible by humans.
The hard part would be determining if the stream of consciousness was uninterrupted or not. Because to an outside observer, the teleported person is unchanged. But you don't know if the original consciousness stopped and a new one was created, or if the old one survived. Even the person being teleported might not know. The only one who would know would be the potentially dead individual who was disassembled in the first place.
No, he's more likely to stuff us in volcanoes and drop hydrogen bombs on us.
sharrrp ยท 263 points ยท Posted at 18:48:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Zeno's paradox isn't a paradox at all. Not really anyway. His most famous one being about dividing the space between two things in half, then dividing one of those halves in half and so on to infinity. So how is it possible for anything to ever move from point A to point B in a finite amount of time if it has to cross an infinite number of spaces?
There are a few ways to resolve this but a good starting point would be to point out that a sum of an infinite number of units does not necessarily add up to an infinite amount of stuff. Even if all those units are all positive. Start with the number 1. Divide by 2 and add the result to itself, but leave it as an expression so 1 + .5. Repeat. 1 + .5 + .25 + .125 + .0625 + ......
You can do that for infinity and you don't get infinity. In fact you never even get 2. An infinite series doesn't always produce an infinte result which is an assumotion underlying Zeno's paradox. So it's not a paradox at all, it's just counter-intuitive.
Not sure this really gets to the heart of the problem though. Regardless of the infinite series having a limit, it is still merely approaching the limit and never crossing it. The issue seems to be not so much about the sum of the series, but the fact that the series itself contains an infinite number of distances that need crossing.
iotto24 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:42:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or an easier one, there is a limit to how far you can divide something. In terms of distance it's plank length. Granted figuring that one out probably took a lot longer than the mathematical version.
Yeah, vsauce made a video on this. Cut a cake in half, cut one of the halves in half,and put it on top of the first half. Cut the remaining piece in half, place one of the halves on top of the cake. Repeat forever, and you've got a cake with finite mass and volume but infinite surface area.
pth_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:26:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the question it should pose is not how can you cross infinite distance, which implies a divergent sum, but at what point can you find the smallest boundary between where you are and where you are not and how does that smallest individual piece begin the movement.
There are a few ways to resolve this but a good starting point would be to point out that a sum of an infinite number of units does not necessarily add up to an infinite amount of stuff. Even if all those units are all positive.
1+2+3+...= -1/12
hearse83 ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 22:33:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I liken this to the a priori argument that God doesn't exist because in order for God to exist:
1) God is all good
2) God is all knowing and all powerful
BUT THERE IS EVIL IN THE WORLD
Well that violated rule #1 so God must not exist.
You're ascribing a condition that you yourself made up.
You failed to consider that
1) God might be an asshole
2) God might not be all powerful or all knowing
3) Your idea of good and evil or bad and good is subjective
Edit: some very intensely passionate people were upset I changed the argument for arguments sake. I have however seen first or second year philosophy students use this as an example of a failure of a priori arguments where there was some sort of fallacy or improperly ascribed element.
That's a complete misinterpretation of the argument. The argument is meant to disprove the existence of all good, all knowing and all powerful being not to disprove the existence of an entity named "God". It's only used like that because people claim that there is an entity named "God" who has those qualities. You cannot disprove the existence of an entity named "God" but that does not mean anything because you can name anything "God".
hearse83 ยท -12 points ยท Posted at 00:39:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I just imagine you so angry and outraged when you wrote this. You're right: it is a misinterpretation of incompatible properties arguments relating to God. But don't tell me you've never heard anyone use it in that fashion.
Man, nothing helps you win an internet argument like calling someone else "angry and outraged" huh
hearse83 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:56:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I actually wasn't arguing with the person, their knowledge of the basics of the argument is correct. My comparison was about people who use formatting of arguments wrong because that's what we were discussing. That was the point that was missed.
Eh not really. Planck length doesnt mean this is the smallest possible distance. Its just the smallest distance at which our science makes any sense. Scientists arent saying "alright guys, thats as small as it gets" theyre saying that's as small as it gets before they can make sense of anything happening.
Zeno lived way before calculus was invented, and did not know that an infinite series could have a finite result. This is the basis of several of his paradoxes.
ETA: I should say, if the time taken per step approaches zero as the step count approaches infinity. You still get a finite result for total time taken.
2) A series of values which tend to 0 need not converge.
Edit: Since the parent comment was edited, only 2) applies. The summand going to 0 is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the convergence of a series of real numbers; as an example, the sum of 1/n diverges although 1/n -> 0.
I have a degree in math. I have taught the basic principles of calculus to hundreds of students. I am very careful to instill the correct notion that limits do not "approach" anything.
The limit L as n approaches infinity of a sequence of real numbers (a_n) where n ranges from 1 to infinity is a real number such that, for any e > 0, there exists a natural number N so that n > N implies |a_n - L| < e. An infinite series is the limit of a sequence of partial sums, which are real numbers.
The harmonic series, sum n from 1 to infinity of 1/n, diverges (the proof is slightly too long for this comment) despite the limit as n goes to infinity of 1/n being 0, since for a particular e, whenever n > 1/e, we have |1/n - 0| < e.
Please tell me where I was wrong, o reddit mathematician. I know there must be many errors.
Please give me a single standard definition of a limit of sequences of real numbers where the limit is not a real number, and is in fact a variable quantity which can be said to "approach" something. You're being incredibly condescending for someone who is completely uneducated in the topic.
You qualified that with "in the sense of Weierstrass delta-epsilon limit" as if to suggest I was only right under some odd assumptions about the original problem. I'm obviously correct, which makes me wonder why you said "you obviously haven't done any calculus" in response to my original comment. I'm very calm; as you can tell, learning from the great mathematicians of AskReddit is my hobby.
No, my second point is absolutely correct. The sum of a sequence which converges to 0 need not converge at all, and an example is given by the harmonic series. I didn't change the way my original comment was phrased in any way, I only added the part denoted by "Edit:" to give an explicit example of a divergent series whose summand tends to 0. I edited my comment because the parent comment was edited to fix the issue I mentioned in the first point.
Ok maybe I just misunderstood the "need not converge" part, because yeah individual terms approaching zero is absolutely not sufficient for convergence.
Stop thinking of a series as a process. A convergent series is a number with the property that the finite sums can be made arbitrarily close to that number by taking a large enough, finite, number of terms.
Yossi25 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:17:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By taking a large (but finite) number of terms, we can arrive at a sum as close as we want to some value. This is the meaning of an infinite series converging. For example, we need 3 terms of the sum of (1/2)n to get within a distance of 0.25 from the value 2 (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 = 1.75 = 2 - 0.25) and 4 terms to get within a distance of 0.125, etc.
Ohhh, so THAT'S the mathematical solution to that!! I knew there was one but never knew exactly what it was. Thank you Newton, Leibniz, and UlrichZauber!
Because it was not one person who came up with the solution to his paradox, it was generations of mathematicians progressing the fields related to the subject until inevitably we reached the point where one was able to make the final leap. Zeno even imagining an infinite sum is incredible, the concept that something could occur an uncountable number of steps and simply continue occurring indefinitely is very bizarre and unique for reality rooted mathematicians of old. Itโs unreasonable to expect Zeno to be able to do it, when mathematics was hardly cemented yet, let alone logic to allow him to reason to the conclusion, especially because some Infinite sums are still counter intuitive today even after 2000+ years of progress.
I (we?) live inside a computer simulation of a more advanced civilization. The problem isn't so much that it can't be proven, it's that it is something that is getting closer and closer to proving itself. Link for those interested in going down a wormhole
EDIT
I'm going to try to add some meat around explaining this theory, but this could get longwindedโฆ
ย
ย
Not that long ago we had no real computing power on our planet, in just a few short years our abilities as a species to process data has skyrocketed to where we are today. There is really no need to get into the gritty details about how fast our abilities are growing, as it is safe enough to say for this theory that they are growing at an increasingly rapid rate.
ย
ย
At this point in time we have the ability to create simulations/models of global weather patterns, complex physics experiments, and much more. Now let's take a moment to think about what a society could do with the amount of computational power that we may end up with in 100 yearsโฆwhat about 1,000 yearsโฆ
ย
ย
Given our past history and species-level narcissism, it is reasonable to think that one thing we would attempt to do would be to 'simulate' our own origins. Sure, this would be an absurdly complex model requiring massive amounts of processing power, but look how much has changed in the last 1,000 years. Is it really too far-fetched to think that we could get to this point in the distant future?
ย
ย
If you are like me and agree that we may very well reach the point where we can run such simulations, then we get to the problem. Would we run just one simulation? Probably no. We would run many, we would tweak seemingly small variables to see how our world would be different with each changeโฆWell shit. If that is the caseโฆ..then there would be many more 'simulated' worlds than real ones, and the odds become ever slimmer that 'we' live in the real world. Sure there would be the one actual civilization that started running simulations in the first place, but again, odds are against us being that group.
ย
ย
This argument also has a convenient way of filling in strange gaps in our knowledge. For example, quantum entanglement is the perplexing phenomenon where two particles can seem to transmit information between each other faster than the speed of light. We fairly certainly accept that this is not actually what is happening, but cannot yet explain how measurements done on one particle can seem to be transmitted to the other so quickly. One possible explanation is that there are 'hidden variables' that are more or less set from the moment the particles are created. Because we don't know what these variables are, we obviously don't know how they would be set, but when looking through the lens of the computer simulation theory we could explain this as a parameter that was set during the creation of the simulation (because keep in mind that the physics we see as true and universal need not apply to the 'real world')
ย
ย
dsds548 ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 15:56:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Quantum entanglement is definitely a hard one to explain. Maybe it's something that we can't measure. Maybe our limit is our understanding of the speed of light as the only form of travel. Or our measurement systems can't measure past the speed of light.
Maybe the Quantum entanglement freezes time so the signal can get to the other particle? Or maybe it's a glitch in the matrix that we found, who knows.
Totally agree. Just an fyi if you are interested: u/andsens posted a link to a really fascinating video below that talks about some fairly recent developments (some experiments as recent as 2015) relating to entanglement and some of the oddities we can observe.
I thought the core of it was simpler - that a particle splits in two and its halves, having opposite quantum parameters or something, go in two opposite directions. Then, by observing one half, you instantly know the parameters of the other half, that could actually be lightyears away at this point (therefore, gaining information faster than the speed of light). Correct me someone if I'm wrong.
This is one of those thought exercises that sounds a lot more plausible than it actually is. First of all, it assumes that we actually could simulate reality perfectly. Second, it assumes that when this is possible, that it is actually done. Third, it assumes that multiple simulations will exist. Finally, it assumes that each multiple is as likely as any to be true.
There are strong arguments against each hypothesis. While I would not argue that this is impossible, it does not seem as likely as it does when presented as you did.
The computing power required for such a simulation is not vast, or huge, it in fact approaches the infinite. But that isn't even the strongest argument against it. That would be the idea that if multiple simulations exist, then there would be many, and this reduces the likelihood that we are real rather than a simulation. This reasoning is actually false. Existence of more possibilities does not necessarily reduce the chance of the likely possibility.
For example: I could be...
A normal human.
Superman
Batman
Sub Mariner
Spider-Man
Flash Gordon
GI Joe
Quicksilver
Wow. Chances are I am a superhero! No, chances are I am a normal human.
Hey thanks for responding! I liked reading through your different perspective. Obviously I don't think there are any right or wrong answers or thoughts here (the thread does have philosophical in the title after all), but I wanted to add in a bit more color to maybe counter some of your counter-points. Just meant to be fun discussion, so please don't take any of this as a personal attack.
First of all, it assumes that we actually could simulate reality perfectly
I don't think it does. It really only assumes we could simulate entities that pass as conscious, and simulate a surrounding environment that they believes is reality. Imagine if the characters in The Sims had the same level of consciousness as us (meaning a human could not tell them apart from another human when interacting with them), but had no idea the outside world existed. The game they live in is not 'simulated perfectly' based on the world we live in, but that doesn't matter. They could still go about their lives abiding by the rules of that world and be none the wiser. I'm not trying to trivialize this though. At no point did I try to imply we could do this today, or even that we are close, but it's certainly not impossible, and we are moving closer to that ability with every leap forward in our technology.
Second, it assumes that when this is possible, that it is actually done.
True, but I would (and did) argue that is a very reasonable assumption.
Finally, it assumes that each multiple is as likely as any to be true.
I'm not sure I totally understand this one, but I'm going to assume this is relating to the analogy you made at the bottom of your comment with the superheros (sorry if you meant something else!). I don't think your analogy and what I was saying really line up that well. Instead can I suggest looking at diamonds. Originally, they were somewhat mysterious stones that were impossible for people to make. If you were an expert, or had access to the right tools, it was always possible to be 100% sure that the rock you had was made by the natural processes of earth. Fast forward to now. If you walk blindly into a pawn shop and grab an engagement ring with no documentation, it's decidedly more difficult, and in some cases impossible to tell if that is a rock formed naturally by the earth's functions, or by a scientist in a lab. The second you create the ability to replicate something convincingly enough that they are indistinguishable from the original, you add uncertainty within every single entity as to which is original and which is synthetic. In this case, we are talking about making 'synthetic' consciousness or 'synthetic' living beings. If we really do end up doing that convincingly enough we will have inherently cast massive doubt on weather we ourselves are the product of the same process.
The first thing you wrote we just have to disagree on, I think. I see the point you are making, but I contend that any believable reality simulation is basically so resource intensive that it is functionally impossible.
You might argue that because it is all we ever knew, so therefore we have nothing to compare it to, but even that is weak given that we experience life so completely.
One other possible argument is that in each simulation, only one life must be simulated. In this scenario, basically ONLY YOU exists, the simulation is inherently for your benefit (at this perspective, of course). The universe outside is only created JIT as you move through it. This would be easier, but still so large that it is staggering.
This is an example of something that seems a lot more possible than it actually is. I would argue that FTL travel is more likely than believable reality simulation on this level.
The last part you have mostly hit on it, but you are not understanding your own argument at its core. For the simulation to be more likely than the reality, there needs to be some evidence that this is the case. The only evidence offered in support of that is a previous, unproven assumption (that if one simulation exists, others must) and the idea that if multiple simulations are existent, then the sheer number of those makes your likelihood of appearance in the only "prime" reality to be unlikely. The sensory realism of the world we are experience is strong argument against the existence of simulation, and that argument is not weakened at all no matter how many simulations are posited. Basically, a zillion simulations is no more likely than one, and even if a zillion simulations exist, that doesn't reduce the chance that you are in the prime reality.
The sensory realism of the world we are experience is strong argument against the existence of simulation, and that argument is not weakened at all no matter how many simulations are posited. Basically, a zillion simulations is no more likely than one, and even if a zillion simulations exist, that doesn't reduce the chance that you are in the prime reality.
Ah, here is our main point of contention. I couldn't disagree with you more on this. My entire argument is based on the fact that simulated entities have achieved a level of (simulated) consciousness that we can't distinguish as being different from our own. Those entities would think and feel and sense things in their simulated world and be able to react and process them just as we do in ours. If that is the case, it is also certainly the case that every simulated universe decreases our chances of being in what you call the 'prime reality.' It's really not that different than if we imagined a super device that you could aim at a planet and immediately create a perfect copy of the planet and every living thing on it. As you start doing that more and more, the odds of any one individual being a member of the original planet continue to decline. From that specific individual's perspective, they could argue that since they saw the copy of their planet get made, they are in the 'prime planet', but what guarantee would they have that they had not been the result of a previous use of the same device?
I just realized I didn't point out why your argument is not convincing. You are looking at it like an external choice.
One of the main things that needs to be grasped is the concept of point of view. For you to be in a simulated reality, some assumptions must be true. For you to be part of a simulated reality farm, more assumptions must be true. This reduces the likelihood of the possibility.
The problem is that it seems less likely because you are thinking of if I am standing outside a room and looking in at a billion simulated realities and one real one, surely the chance of choosing the actual reality must be smaller. That is true, but it isn't what we are talking about. Whether or not you exist in a simulated reality is not an external choice. The fact that more assumptions must be true for it to be true reduces the likelihood of it being true.
For you to be in a simulated reality, some assumptions must be true. For you to be part of a simulated reality farm, more assumptions must be true. This reduces the likelihood of the possibility.
Sure, but more importantly the fact it's based on assumptions and not proven observable facts makes this a philosophical concept or theory rather than just a widely accepted fact of our universe...and that was kinda the topic of the thread in the first place :)
If that is the case, it is also certainly the case that every simulated universe decreases our chances of being in what you call the 'prime reality.
This just isn't true. I see the argument you made following, but it just doesn't hold any weight. For one thing, just like someone else wrote, nowhere does it say that there is only one reality. There could be just as many realities as there are simulated realities.
But the main point persists, and that is you have zero evidence that even one simulation exists, let alone some multiple of them. Your entire argument is based on flimsy speculation.
There is no evidence for simulation other than speculation and a thought experiment.
Even if simulations exist, it doesn't matter how many there are. For one thing, all of them exist in the same reality!
you have zero evidence that even one simulation exists, let alone some multiple of them
...I never said I did. In fact the entire point of my post was instead to talk about things that would have to happen to put us in a position where we have to come to terms with the fact we may very well be in a simulation. Obviously this is just a theory, and like any theory for it to be proven true, the base assumptions I lay out in the original post would have to at some point be confirmed. Alternatively it's entirely possible that one or all of those assumptions are proven to be impossible (maybe there is some limit to computing power or something similar) and as a result this theory gets tossed aside like many other that came before it. The point though is that it's a rather wild theory that paints the world in a much different light than most people see it today, and in my opinion the assumptions that form the foundation for the theory are not too wild for me to see the possibility of it being true.
First of all, it assumes that we actually could simulate reality perfectly
We don't have to simulate reality perfectly to create a new sim-reality, in which the sim-reality beings only know and appreciate their world as "true"/"perfect" reality. Perhaps the reality that you and I know is really watered down and basic compared to the reality experienced by our computer creators
Second, it assumes that when this is possible, that it is actually done. Third, it assumes that multiple simulations will exist.
These are probably the easiest assumptions. Humans are endlessly curious and will most likely attempt a universe simulation as soon as it's feasible. The only reason a person would stop at 1 simulation is if that 1 simulation crashed catastrophically in a way that makes a 2nd simulation impossible or highly likely to be life-threatening
Finally, it assumes that each multiple is as likely as any to be true. ... That would be the idea that if multiple simulations exist, then there would be many, and this reduces the likelihood that we are real rather than a simulation. This reasoning is actually false. Existence of more possibilities does not necessarily reduce the chance of the likely possibility.
I mean, they're all "true" realities, but some exist created beneath others, likely in a very large tree with many branches. So the likelihood of any of them being true is 100%, but perhaps there exists a single "original" or "primary" reality. And how can we say so confidently that we are in the primary reality rather than an offshoot? We have nothing to compare our reality to.
The computing power required for such a simulation is not vast, or huge, it in fact approaches the infinite.
This argument is trivial on the scale of universe time. We will easily have enough power to simulate at least a primitive universe given another 1000 years.
For example: I could be...
A normal human.
Superman
Batman
Sub Mariner
Spider-Man
Flash Gordon
GI Joe
Quicksilver
Wow. Chances are I am a superhero! No, chances are I am a normal human.
This is such a bad point it makes me think less of everything else you said. First of all, superheros aren't real (Using celebrities would make more sense). Second of all, there are billions of normal humans and very few "special" humans. Come on
This is such a bad point it makes me think less of everything else you said. First of all, superheros aren't real (Using celebrities would make more sense).
This is completely irrelevant and shows that you don't understand the argument at all. For one thing, perfectly simulated (or even simulated to the point where sentient participants cannot discern it from actual reality) reality isn't real either. For another, that particular point was refuting the idea that the existence of more simulations reduces the possibility of being in the reality versus in a simulation. It does exactly that. Just because there are more possible places to go, does not mean that the chance of getting to the given spot is reduced appreciably. The fact that they are not real is actually the point of the argument. There is no superman, or other superhero, so no matter how many of them I tack on, the chance of me being a normal human is unaffected.
Your idea of how much computing power we will have in 1000 years is really naรฏve. As someone else pointed out, the minimum amount of space and data required to simulate an electron is an electron. The minimum amount of space and data to simulate a universe is...a universe. The data in the universe is functionally infinite.
Even if this uber civilization is only simulating subsets of the universe, the amount of space and power required is basically impossibly large.
One thing we know is more necessary preconditions reduces the likelihood of an event. So we could have: the reality we perceive is actual reality.
OR
There is a perceived reality that exists.
In this reality a civilization exists.
That civilization has the computational ability and resources to believably simulate the universe.
That civilization uses the resources to produce the simulation.
We are living in that simulation.
Which one is more likely? Believe what you want, but it seems pretty clear to me.
There is a perceived reality that exists.
In this reality a civilization exists.
We sort of have to take these two as givens, to avoid getting into an existential void
That civilization has the computational ability and resources to believably simulate the universe.
This is the 2nd most difficult condition, but a distant distant second. I would say, with regards to your points about necessary technology, that you could definitely just simulate a universe 0.001% of your own universe's size and with half the detail, and still learn a lot. To recreate your own universe as a 1-to-1 replica is impossible with what we currently know about physics, but that could change and with more economical scales, you can still simulate model universes with consciousness and reality
That civilization uses the resources to produce the simulation.
This one's a slam dunk, nearly 100% chance
We are living in that simulation.
This is easily the hardest part of the theory for me. So we suppose that there is one "original" reality in this universe, and anywhere from 0-infinite sim-realities branching off beneath the original. If there are 10,000 fake realities and 1 original reality, it seems obvious that we are in a fake one.
That seems to be they key point where I'm not seeing eye to eye with you. If there's 99 fake realities and 1 real reality, then there's a 99% chance I'm in a fake one. Why do you feel strongly that you're in the original reality?
That seems to be they key point where I'm not seeing eye to eye with you. If there's 99 fake realities and 1 real reality, then there's a 99% chance I'm in a fake one.
This is the point of contention, and it is because you are not understanding the point of view. It is not an external choice (which is how you are viewing it).
If an observer walked in and was picking a reality or sim in your case, they have a 99% chance to pick a sim. But that isn't what is happening.
The likelihood of reality versus simulation is based on the likelihood of the necessary preconditions. I don't agree with how easily you hand wave them away, but for now lets place that aside. Here is why no matter how many simulation universes exist, the probability of being in a sim can no more than double.
The probability of being in a universe where one simulation exists is P. The probability of being in a universe where multiple simulation universes exist is xP. The probability of either being true is therefore, P+xP.
It is possible for a universe to exist where a single simulation is made, but no others are. It is not possible to exist in a universe where multiple simulations exist, but one has not existed. Therefore the probability of multiple simulations is less than that of the single simulation. So x must therefore be less than one.
Consider the preconditions as stated before. It is possible to write the preconditions so that they are one or more simulations. However, since one is required for more than one, and as previously shown the P for one must be greater than the P for many, the total probability is P1=P+xP, where x is a value less than one.
However, what really matters is that the likelihood of being in just regular reality is much, much higher than P because the simulation universe requires many more preconditions, all of which exist in the other universe as well. So the P of the universe being only a single perceivable reality is yP, where y is a number greater than one.
In a best case scenario for the simulation universe there is a 66% chance of being in a simulation. That, however is extremely unlikely. Even the ones you call slam dunks are not. Just because the resources exist, does hot mean they will get used for a project. There are resources available for us to do many things that are never attempted.
What really matters is this, y is an unbounded, positive number, while x is never greater than 1. The chance of yP being greater than P+xP is very, very high.
The probability of being in a universe where one simulation exists is P
Ok so based on the assumptions set forth in the the theory, we are assuming P=1 (again you can argue till you are blue in the face about some of the assumptions being impossible, but that's not the point of the argument)
The probability of being in a universe where multiple simulation universes exist is xP
This is still one of the assumptions needed for simulation theory though, so this is still 1
The probability of either being true is therefore, P+xP
Again, we are just saying that this = 1 because the assumption is that we live in a society that will have the power to create a simulation in the future, and eventually will do just that multiple times.
However, what really matters is that the likelihood of being in just regular reality is much, much higher than P because the simulation universe requires many more preconditions
No, probability can't be greater than one. (Again, if your argument was just 'I don't think one or more of the assumptions set forward in the original post is possible', it's the end of the argument and we agree to disagree). The problem starts when you then try to say:
In a best case scenario for the simulation universe there is a 66% chance of being in a simulation.
This is just baseless and honestly makes no sense. We are starting with the premise that we live in a society that will achieve the technology to create powerful simulations of our universe (or sufficient subsections greater than or equal to what we are currently able to observe) , and that we will also take action to create those simulations. As soon as this is stated, your equation gets very simple. We can only live in one 'reality', so even if you believe there are multiple realities the equation looks like below where p(real)-> probability we live in a true reality, (r)->number of realities (most would assume r=1 unless they are counting parallel universes or something else), and (s)->number of simulated universes
p(real)= (r)/(r+s)
From here you can see the core of the theory. Up until we create the first massive simulation, when only things we can directly observe are counted p(real)=1/1, so no problem. As soon as that first one goes live p(real) drops to 1/2, and the second drops it further, and the cycle continues every time a new one is spun up. That's the core of the theory and why I say we are marching towards proving it true as we make more and more progress with our computing power. Any time youu increase s (number of simulated universes) you are always decreasing the probability you live in a 'true reality'.
Ok so based on the assumptions set forth in the the theory, we are assuming P=1
No, we are absolutely not assuming that. The actual formula is 1=yP+P+xP, but expressing the numbers of x and y is much more complex this way. The possibilities we are discussing are the likelihood of separate events, when we assume that these events are the only possibilities. The point is this, y is at least one order of magnitude greater than x, and most likely many, many orders of magnitude greater.
New simulations have no effect on the probability, because like I showed before, it has to do only with the necessary preconditions, not on the number of simulations. If your case were true, I could say it is more likely that we are living in a universe created by a lego master with the greatest set of legos, because he always has 1 more lego set than you have simulations.
That is nonsense. Adding extra number of things that are unlikely and without any evidence for their existence does not have any effect. The likelihood is based solely on the likelihood of the scenario, not the number of moving parts within the scenario.
First of all, it assumes that we actually could simulate reality perfectly
In this theory, "reality" is a simulation. The reality you know could be an extremely simple simulation compared to actual reality. We would never know.
Second, it assumes that when this is possible, that it is actually done.
If it becomes possible there is a 100% chance humans will attempt it.
Third, it assumes that multiple simulations will exist
If it's a simulation for any kind of scientific reason, bigger sample sizes are preferred. You would run a million simulations to see what results they share.
Finally, it assumes that each multiple is as likely as any to be true.
Well no, the theory is saying that if there are 999,999 simulations + 1 actual reality, you have a one in million chance of belonging to the actual reality.
The computing power required for such a simulation is not vast, or huge, it in fact approaches the infinite
It in no form approaches the infinite. You're making assumptions based on technology that allegedly exists inside a simulation.
For example: I could be...
Not sure you understand your own logic here. Humans could be super-beings compared to the ones who created the simulation. You wouldn't know, because you only know what you know. In actual reality the beings that created the simulation could have nine legs and two heads. Maybe the concept of legs and heads doesn't even exist outside the simulation.
You are for some reason assuming that a) humans created the simulation, and b) that everything in the simulation is an exact simulation of actual reality. Why?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:07:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The issue is you are assuming that each case is equally likely. They aren't. The existence of significantly more necessary preconditions for the simulated consciousnesses to even exist shows that. The real world explanation is orders of magnitude more likely (because of fewer requirements), so adding a bunch more things that have no evidence for their existence (and are significantly less likely) doesn't change the calculus any.
andsens ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:11:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By testing Bell's theorem you can actually disprove the hidden variables explanation of quantum physics (though not if it's a simulated universe, then I guess everything goes).
I would recommend watching a video by 3Blue1Brown and
Minute Physics about exactly that, it's really good and demonstrates it in a very intuitive way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs
That was a fantastic video! I'll certainly have to drop the hidden variable example as that clearly shows it's been awhile since my math/physics days! (like you said though, that doesn't really disprove or even hold a ton of relevance for the simulation/non simulation argument as oddities like that could in theory be artifacts of the initial 'set up' of the physics for that simulation).
You don't even need to create a simulated world/universe, right? You just need to create a simulated AI that perceives a universe. The AI wouldn't need to have a tree for it to touch, it would only require the sensation of a tree that it "touches" and "sees".
Easy answer just don't think about it. Cause if you do and start to deviate from the " programming" the "programmers" must debug the system. Because when we deviate from the program we become the bugs thus killing us debugs the system.
Not that long ago we had no real computing power on our planet, in just a few short years our abilities as a species to process data has skyrocketed to where we are today.
I could certainly see that being the case. Lines up nicely with the comment by /u/OneAmp too. There would always be known ways for things to render, but they don't actually come into existence until they are needed.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:57:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I actually really like that analogy. They would have no reason to question if they were real until they were shown the possibility of being in one of many different monitors
We're definitely in a simulation. I'm converted. I might start a cult at this moment.
Thanks
maksen ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:19:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Back in the day we saw a future full of flying cars and hoverboards. Now we see a future full of simulations and lifelike A.I. Whats the point in flying cars you ask? Nothing. Thats why we invented cellphones instead. Whats the point in doing simulations? Who cares, lets invent a shimagadood. Shimagadood's will change the world in 10 years time. Its gonna be huge. We just don't know what it is yet!
I must say that all this talk about simulations and AI's taking over the world are getting a liiittle out of hand and a liittle Y2K. At this point people just jump on the bandwagon just to be at the edge of tomorrow. Scared of being out of the loop. I heard some seemingly intelligent guy on youtube say: "it could be that in 5 years we will have robots we can't differenciate from real human beings!". Put down the joint dude. Settle down now. We don't know where technology will take us and it will probably we wilder than we can ever imagine, but it will most likely not be what we imagine. It will be a Shimagadood.
As for simulatioms go. We can do cool simulations nowadays. I work with 3D simulations on a daily basis right now using houdini fx. Holy hell can you do some crazy shit inthere! Like.. With sand.. Falling.. And, water, like, water filling something up and stuff. And then there are microbes in the water and if i fast forward they mutate and animals start crawling out and before i know it, some of those animals has 2 legs and invents a shimagadood. Oh god, run for your lives.
The actual question for this idea is if we are in a simulation, does it matter? With the assumptions that there is a universe, we exist in it, and we can change it in mind.
Jkoni26 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:14:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the only conspiracy theory I've heard that I actually somewhat believe.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:24:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm okay with these theories because if they were true this is the shitiest simulation Iโve ever seen
OneAmp ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:38:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think about this often and I thought I'd throw this out there. There is some evidence to support that reality might be a simulation. Take the observer effect for example. The notion that light behaves differently when observed reminds me of the way video games render. You don't bother rendering it if the player can't see it. Not exactly the same, I know, but interesting to think about.
This is only applicable if you assume humans can get to that level of technology without killing ourselves. I would estimate that statistically it is very likely we all die before that.
Something that I've always questioned about this theory is whether a simulated universe can/will/would be simulated within another simulated universe. The computational power needed to run just one by itself would be nuts, and I have to imagine that running a second one within that simulation would drastically increase that power requirement (my gut feeling is that the required power would increase exponentially, don't have time to think it all the way through though). Assuming that computational power will remain finite forever, I think you inevitably reach a point where running an additional nested simulation would require more computational power than is available, and what then? Do the people of that simulated universe plug in their new "existance box" and cause the nonsimulated computer in the real world to crash, instantly destroying every other simulation? Do they plug it in and find that it just doesn't work? Does the nonsimulated computer start lagging, causing time in all simulations to slow? I really can't make heads or tails of it, but it feels like a reasonable enough counter to me.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:17:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The only real problem I see is that the amount of computer power is gonna be restrained by how many bits you can manipulate in a given space. In theory quantum computers allow you to manipulate more bits then exist in the space being used if you ignore the physical space the supporting machinery takes up, but it's still a hard problem.
It might very well be possible that super advanced entities could create entire universes without breaking the laws of physics, but simulation, at least in the way we define it, is far fetched. Not only are you talking about virtualizing every atom of the universe, but at a speed where ultra high frequency waves can correctly interact with other ones.
I donno, I believe more in a grand architect then a simulator, but they are not all that different, just in the method and medium in which they exist.
Although technology has seemed to grow exponentially in the past century, there IS a limit to many things and we are reaching them. For example, computer components actually do have a physical limit to how small they can be on an atomic level. We cannot continue to go smaller and smaller indefinitely. Itโs very likely that we will soon hit a technological wall that we will not be able to pass for quite some time.
We're on a generation-colony ship and this part of the sim is explaining why the shit we decided to climb into a death box and leave our perfectly acceptable rock so our great-great-grandkids would eke out new life on a different rock.
I hope there's air.
IronMew ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:49:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The best argument I've thought of against this theory is that there don't seem to be any bugs. The universe has many things we don't yet fully understand, such as quantum theory as you say, but what we do understand works 100% reliably.
Where are the wall clips, the texture errors, the many and entertaining glitches that every simulation has - out of a need for efficiency when not out of explicitly shoddy programming?
I'll grant that a future civilisation would probably do things a lot better than we do, but total software reliability still seems difficult to believe.
And then, ultimately, even if what you say is true and we are all in an advanced version of the matrix... does it even matter, if none of us can ever tell the difference and become Neo?
It's not a rendering. It's a simulation. A video game is an environment created based on a set of established environmental variables; this is how gravity works, this is how heat disipates, etc. Things already known and established, feed into the gaming engine as a set of rules that it must follow in order to produce a very specific required result; realistic water and lightning effects and so forth, for the purposes of entertainment by immersion. It is attempting to recreate exacting conditions, not generate new ones.
The simulation is attempting to create new conditions. A set of initial rules are given to the engine and then it's allowed to run it's course based on those rules. In the case of the universe we have the four fundamental forces; gravity, electromagnetism, strong atomic force and weak atomic force. These are created at once during the big bang and everything that has happened after that is the result of those four rules. This is well established by our current scientific body of knowledge.
The computer is creating conditions based on those very simple rules so there are no such things a glitches because what we are experiencing is unique to this universe. The simulation didn't set out to duplicate us or anything in our nature. We are the result of the the simulation.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:12:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If those things were common we wouldn't call them glitches, we'd call them physics.
For me it's be the problem of free will. When you think about it, we are in control of nothing. Not to be drib and fatalistic. But I do believe the universe is deterministic. And as conscious beings aware of this problem there is nothing we can do about it but observe.
Whenever I find myself thinking about questions like this, I always ask myself, "Does it matter?"
Whether free will exists or not won't make a difference, as my life will only ever play out one way. Until there is some crazy breakthrough in quantum physics, then 'our' universe will only ever play out one way.
Check out Daniel Dennitt's compatibilism. He has some interesting ideas how we can both have free will and live in a deterministic universe.
Essentially (and I may screw this up a bit), he proposes that our ability to identify multiple paths forward and then act with the intent to go down that path is our free will. Therefore, those that have a better ability to think about the future have "more" free will than those that cannot. What really gets weird for me is he doesn't state that the actual decision of going down that path is free will - - that's still determined based off the cause and effect of electrical impulses in the brain, but just the leaning towards one way or another is freedom.
That sounds to me like the rationalizations if a guy who is desperate to have and therefore explain free will, but knows in his gut that it actually doesnโt exist. But Iโll definitely check it out, I always love to learn new ideas. Thanks!
Haha well you're not totally wrong. Most compatibilism certainly has that tinge of desperately trying to merge two opposite ideas, but his at least makes some sense.
Personally I don't buy into it, but I appreciate his effort.
The universe at large is very much non-deterministic. I thought everything was deterministic for a while, and it does seem reasonable until you get to small scales. Quantum events are fundamentally random, like radioactive decay and quantum tunneling. Since our world at large is a product of quantum interactions, I do not think the universe is deterministic.
What this means for free will is debatable and unsolvable, but I think it's very interesting.
My understanding is that quantum events are not fundamentally random, they are fundamentally undeterminable/immeasurable and therefore unpredictable. This does not mean random and indeterministic, just that we are limited in our perspective.
Thanks. I just posted a rant about free will vs. determinism, which will most likely get buried. But it seems super likely to me that as we discover these new scientific events that we don't understand, they're probably not random, we just don't have the knowledge to understand them yet. I mean, historically speaking, that's been the case for eons.
Thanks for the link. It attributes indeterminism to the Uncertainty Principle though, which is what I thought, and I feel still supports my interpretation. Our measurement capabilities are limited by our perspective. If we can complete our understanding of physics I think we will realize that the quantum world is also predetermined. Of course weโre all just speculating without a more complete understanding of quantum mechanics.
The Uncertainty Principle is not about measurement capabilities. It is a fundamental characteristic of any wave-like system, wherein certain pairs of variables cannot both be precisely determined in any way, even by a hypothetical perfect observer.
You mean like measuring both position and velocity of a particle at the same time? Because that seems to be directly related to measurable observation.
the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.
I see. I may have been combining the Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect.
Still I think reality is fundamentally deterministic and that we currently donโt fully understand quantum mechanics. Of course, related to the Uncertainty Principle we may possibly not be capable of knowing.
Heisenberg himself conflated the observer principle with the uncertainty principle. Still, most quantum chemists or physicists subscribe to the "shut up and calculate" interpretation of QM.
I one read a very nice explanation, that shines light on why it is fundamentally impossible to measure momentum and position at the same time.
Imagine you were sitting in your car. Now you drive too fast and get caught speeding by a camera. How can the camera measure your speed? Easy, it uses basic physics. It observes what distance you have travelled in which time, the definition of velocity. Now you can already see, the camera can only determine your velocity in a certain stretch of a location. With a car, thats no problem, we just take a very small stretch (compared to the car). A cars velocity does not change much over 1 cm of driving distance.
To know its location, you can now take a picture with the camera. Of course, with a picture you have an exact location but no idea about the velocity. You can already see that we cannot obtain the velocity and the location at the exact same time with the same method of measurement.
Not a problem with a car, but consider now: we make the object very, very, very small. Things cannot get infinitely small, so if we want to measure the velocity of the object, we have to take a stretch of its location thats relatively big compared to the object. This leaves us with a decision, do we want a large error in position or in velocity, which is basically Heisenbergs uncertainty principle.
Your understanding is mistaken. Quantum mechanics are fundamentally random. For example, radioactive decay depends on quantum tunneling of the particles that make up an unstable nucleus. At quantum scales, all particles exhibit the same particle/wave duality that photons do. Every particle has a wave function, a probability cloud instead of an exact location.
Please elaborate further if you can, specifically on the random element. Again, as I understand the probability cloud is not necessarily random, just indeterminable, and only defined upon observation. I donโt know anything about quantum tunneling though.
efie ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:02:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/u/Quaildorf is somewhat mixing up randomness and probability. A coin toss is, for all intents and purposes, random, as the result is 50/50. It is impossible to accurately predict the outcome. However quantum tunneling* has a well-defined probability. We cannot determine exactly when transmission will occur, only that is has, say, 70% chance of occurring within a certain time. If a die were weighted so that a 6 occurred 70% of the time, you would not that is random.
So, quantum mechanics is unpredictable and the exact events are immeasurable, but their probabilities are definable.
*Quantum tunneling is what happens when a particle 'tunnels' through a barrier and that particle is found in a location that would be impossible classically. Imagine a positive charge (like a proton) managing to break through a wall of positive charge (from which it is overwhelmingly repelled). The probability of finding the proton on the other side of the barrier (the transmission probability) is well-defined, and this is directly linked to the half-life of a particle.
thurken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:54:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A coin toss is, for all intents and purposes, random, as the result is 50/50
If we can't we predict the individual result of a coin toss, is it because even though it is deterministic we are not able to fully understand it, or because under the exact same conditions (also of location and time, so basically impossible to test) it could produce a different output?
It seems to me probabilities are a good way to model behaviors we have trouble explaining/predicting individually, but I am not convinced things are not deterministic. If you have pointers of proofs whether certain things are non-deterministic, I am very interested but I have not seen it and I am not sure such a proof could exist.
If we can't we predict the individual result of a coin toss, is it because even though it is deterministic we are not able to fully understand it...?
Yes, in case you were wondering. Variables we haven't considered or controlled add to the randomness of the result. It's entirely possible to eliminate those variables though and make the result of a coin toss totally predictable.
anne-so ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:44:04 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A coin toss is, for all intents and purposes, random, as the result is 50/50
this is not tue, I remember seeing a video with scientist using a "robot coin tosser" able to predicts coin toss results
Umbrias ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The time evolution of a system is deterministic so time will always pass the same way (based on my poor understanding of it), but the physical outcomes are not. The point is that if you went back to the starting time, as well as every other starting quality of a system, the result would be different, but the macro change of the system would remain the same, and the way time passes will remain the same.
There are hypotheses in physics about hidden numbers etc. that would make quantum physics fully deterministic if these unknown values existed, but I don't believe they are very fleshed out at this time.
At the end of the day if these quantum behaviors are fully deterministic but effectively random, then there isn't a difference at the front end. However, many things point towards quantum physics being random, rather than only undeterminable.
thurken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:56:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The point is that if you went back to the starting time, as well as every other starting quality of a system, the result would be different
How can you prove that?
However, many things point towards quantum physics being random, rather than only undeterminable.
Can you describe (or link) some of those things?
Umbrias ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:16:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How can you prove that?
I don't know if you could experimentally. I'd ask a physicist on that one.
Can you describe (or link) some of those things?
The easiest example is the famous double slit experiment. No matter how precise you make the experiment, you will always have the deflection bands. These bands exist because of a probability wave.
Another good example is Bell's Theorem, but I'll just link a nice video for that, as minutephysics will do an infinitely better job explaining it than I ever could.
axberka ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 16:09:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the paradox(maybe paradox isn't the word im looking for) I have come across is this, there may be a name for it but its something that has been bouncing around in my head.
No matter what happens in our universe, the universe will end up in some particular way. My life will go some kind of way, whether dying tomorrow or 40 years from now. There is some way, inevitably that it will end up. If that is the case, then the universe is in a sense deterministic. what comes into play when I say "well I will just do nothing until I starve" if I did do that then that is the way that my life was "predetermined"
That's one way of thinking about it. But do you have any reason to think that way?
What if every decision each of us makes creates an alternate timeline?
There's an idea about "quantum immortality", where if you ever die your consciousness jumps to the nearest alternate timeline where you survive.
Those ideas sound ridiculous at first, but they're just as unprovable as the idea that everything is predetermined.
axberka ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:05:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have no idea Iโm just a 22 year old economics/finance student haha but the whole infinite universe theory is weird to me because it would mean a few things.
It would mean we have Free will, which I donโt think we do. The whole existence of other universes implies we could have, and in those universes, did make other choices.
To suggest we donโt have Free will and impose that there is still multiple universes would be to imply that the laws of nature dont exist(it would suppose that forces of nature donโt have typical ways in which they interact. Meaning that the way the wind blew could have been different if X. Well the only way X would have been different is if there was Free will)
If we suppose there is Free will, that would mean there would be infinite, infinite universes. What I mean by that is, suppose Iโm walking down the street. For each step I could make an almost infinite number of choices about that step. About the muscles contracting in my leg. In my ear. In my arm. Each contains an infinite number of choices. Not to mention in the past of my life, the infinite infinite number of possibilities of choices Iโve made leading up to that. And then everyone else. In one universe on day 10,567 of my life I flexed my left eye muscle slightly and in that same universe Amanda in Germany didnโt. Itโs similar to the whole vsauce โone infinite can be larger than anotherโ video. This would be the largest infinite imaginable, which would be appropriate I suppose.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:36:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
axberka ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:52:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
maybe I should clarify my example of the wind, because I think you are interpreting it backwards. If there is no free will, and to also suggest there are multiple universes is not possible. If there is no free will, we are being acted on by our very nature, or the nature of our brain at the very least. In other words our brain is acting in a way that is responsive to stimulus similar to wind is reactive to forces around it, blowing this way or that way due to external forces like a car passing.
To suggest that we would have acted differently in a different universe, one that is devoid of free will, is to say that gravity could have also acted differently or wind in the same circumstances as the other universe which is not true.
I think that explains better
neringi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:22:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your comments by far have been the most eloquent and elegant way to describe deterministic universe, thank you.
I'll add my two cents and say that I do not believe in infinite universe existing since it creates a paradox.
If the multiverse is infinite then there is a 100% chance of any universe existing but then what about a universe where multiverse does not exist. Well then by contradiction you can say that - no, the multiverse cannot be infinite at all!
axberka ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:32:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow thank you for saying that I really appreciate the kind words! And that is a very good point, I would like to hear the explanation on that.
Interesting point on this. I think there are two counterpoint to this, though.
1, it could simply be that the universes are independent. Thus, if a universe were created in which there were no "connection" to the other multiverse, it doesn't invalidate the existence of the multiverse. It simply exists independent of it.
2, just because their is an infinite number of occurrences of something doesn't necessarily mean that anything can happen. This is a common fallacy. If there are rules that simple cannot be broken, it doesn't matter how many times you try to break it, it won't break. Thus, if it were impossible to create a universe independent of the multiverse, it doesn't matter how many universes are created, none would ever exist without connection to the greater multiverse.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:18:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm a bit late to this thread but even if there are an infinite number of universes, that doesn't mean that every conceivable universe has to exist. Kind of like how there are an infinite amount of odd numbers, but that doesn't mean one of them has to be divisible by 2. There could be an infinite number of universes yet some characteristics could be the same across all of them.
I used to think that as well, but we as humans are more biased than we like to think. I think with questions like this we tend towards explanations that make us most comfortable, even if we do it subconsciously.
Things like infinity are difficult, even incomprehensible subjects. It's easy to dismiss "infinite universes" as ridiculous. But is it impossible? I don't think so.
I think we do have free will, but there's really nothing to prove it either way. I think the fact that we feel like we have free will is significant, as is the fact that quantum mechanics are non-deterministic. But god only knows haha.
axberka ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:35:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt think itโs ridiculous, I think itโs hard to rationalize is all. I think we donโt have Free will because our brains act faster than we have time to understand we are thinking things. Computers can guess what you will do before you do them, based on brain waves. Sam Harris has a number of thought experiments on it(disregarding if you have prior thoughts on Harris): https://youtu.be/7t_Uyi9bNS4
I don't believe in free will either. The thought came to me a couple years ago. maybe I don't know about quantum mechanics enough but I thought top physicists don't have it all figured out either.
Anyway I thought of it as like a ball that you could kick. If you know the forces that are about to act on it you can tell how its going to move and where it will end up. As a person all your past experiences, anything you see, feel, or hear etc are like these forces and will effect your decision making in the future. The problem is we don't know everyones past experiences or necessarily how they might effect someone. Everything is already moving. It's like suddenly looking a a foosball table with multiple balls on it already that could even have some spin to them we don't notice so there motion might appear random at first.
I think thereโs a big difference between having a number of possibilities or probabilities and having something predetermined. If you have a long enough view and are super loose with โpredeterminedโ then you could apply it to literally everything because of the casual nature in which we try to understand or view things.
That's one way of thinking about it. But do you have any reason to think that way?
Think of it like this: who you are is determined by the stimuli present in the environment you were born and raised in. That all collectively made you the way you are now. Well, in order for those stimuli to turn out the way they are to make you as you are now, all the people who influenced every bit of that needed to turn out exactly the way they were. And you can go on and on up the chain until you end up at all the natural occurrences of the universe playing out in a very specific pattern that result in the you that you are. This is to say, the past happened exactly as it did to arrive at the exact present we are at now.
Now, where determinism comes into play is that the you that you are now will act in a way defined by your experiences. Whatever reasons you believe you came to the conclusion of any decision, it's all a result of everything that influenced you, which we can already say happened in an exact way. Extending this to all other people around us, everyone will act according to the pattern laid out from the very beginning of interactivity at the beginning of time.
If everyone will act in a specific manner, then you can push this into the future. All of your actions and those around you will mold future people to act in specific ways, who will then act in specific ways, and so on and so forth.
Regarding quantum uncertainty, the only way that can influence different outcomes of a person's will is if our consciousness is tied into quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics is actually random and not just unpredictable based on our inability to properly measure it. And I would argue that's a hard thing to advocate, since even whatever rules that govern quantum mechanics will have been set in motion by what occurred at the very beginning of time.
This all may be able to be explained more concisely, but I clearly was not able to do that.
If you rewind time 100 years and reset the universe to exactly the way it was 100 years ago, it would play out slightly differently because of quantum randomness. Is the universe still deterministic or not?
Is it proven that the randomness wouldn't just be the same. I wonder? only because we cannot predict quantum randomness beforehand it doesn't mean it wouldn't play out the exact same if we turn back time.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:00:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
it would probably play out differently, though I'm admittedly not a quantum physicist haha! Though, I would still say that it is at least in a sense deterministic because that randomness will manifest in a certain way in the end, we just do not currently know in what way it will manifest.
If we rewind time 100 years, the next 100 years would be different but still determined in a certain way. admittedly different than the original way, but will still end up in a certain configuration no?
Forgive me for quoting Wikipedia, but "Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible" and that "Determinism is the philosophical theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes." But if some sort of completely random mechanism affects quantum-level events, such that rewinding and replaying the universe results in a different result, then at least that definition of Determinism doesn't work. As you say "it will still end up in a certain configuration," but that certain configuration is not pre-determined (according to that randomness), which is at least an implied property of Determinism. Thus it would be playing the result to say "this is exactly what was supposed to happen," the same way that fans of a sports team that just won a close championship by a lucky bounce might say "they won because they're the best." Well, not necessarily. What occurred may have only occurred because something had to occur, in which case it wouldn't be fair to state that what did occur was also the only thing that could have occurred.
But allow me to step further. Without understanding how those random quantum events actually happen, we have a potential mechanism whereby an extra-physical soul (or deity, etc.) could be able to affect the physical world in a way that we can't measure but that nullifies what appears to be an otherwise ironclad case for determinism.
In other words, without understanding how those random events come to be, we can't say for certain that they're completely based on consistent laws of physics.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:43:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i agree with you fully, that is why I have been using qualifiers for what I mean like saying predeterminism in quotations, or saying things like "in a sense".
let me put forth something I thought of while reading your comment, not something I necessarily I agree with but bear with me. If a extra physical deity was affecting our physical world that we cannot measure to push the world in a particular way, would that not be an argument for a version of "predeterminism" as a deity is in essence determining our outcome no matter our choices?
It would depend on whether or not we could "push back," I would think.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:11:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In this, we could safely assume that this deity is beyond our ability to push back and is beyond conventional physics, i think is a logical conclusion to draw. This deity would eventually manipulate the nature of our reality to their liking, in time. Maybe not now, but time would be meaningless to this thing so while we could steer humanity in one direction but eventually it would correct back to the way the stringpuller intends rendering our choices ultimately meaningless.
humodx ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:00:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree with your argument. If the future state can't be predicted by analyzing the current state, the system is non-deterministic.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:06:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
fair enough, lets tease this out because like I said I have been chewing on this whole topic for a little while and find it really interesting. We can both agree that we will, probably, die one day if technology does not advance far enough to allow us to live forever no?
humodx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:25:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:58:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ok, so we agree we are slowly dying that much is evident. Because we know you will die, then we know something has to kill you. Liver failure, hit by a car, shot by a crazy person etc something will take your life.
I am not saying "you cannot avoid death by gun shot from crazy person" I am saying no matter how you die, that was the way it was going to be because your life has a beginning and end, much like a movie that we do not know the end to.
Your thoughts?
humodx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:51:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think this argument is a bit too loose. I'm arguing that if you can't predict with 100% certainty the future state of a system from its current state, it's non-deterministic.
You're argument boils down to "from state A, we'll eventually arrive at something like state B", which isn't enough to prove determinism.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:04:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i think the crux of this is I am not arguing for determinism, but a form of determinism. I think your summation of my idea is pretty close, like I said this idea is something I am chewing on even now. I think a more accurate summation of this thought I am working through is "from state A, we will arrive at state B. State B is a guaranteed state we will arrive at. What are the implications of this when we look at how to live life, and how we think about the state of life itself"
From the beginning I have used quotes around predetermined, and used qualifiers like in a sense because I don't think I agree with determinism, because like you have shown things are not predetermined in the full sense
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:24:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
axberka ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:42:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I won't let it bother me though, because why would I.
that's exactly how I feel, all we can do is try to do our best, and help as many people as we can achieve a fruitful life, regardless if its determined or not.
But if it's predetermined you can't try to do those things. Either you are predetermined to do those things or you aren't.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:35:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I do not think what I am trying to say terms of "predetermined", but that seems to be the best word to describe what I am thinking of. My idea comes from the notion that the universe is logically going to go one way, if we looked at the history of everything where we stand and where it will ultimately go, if I decide to "fight it" and decide to sit in my room all day doing nothing until I die, ironically this is what my life was going to be in the grand scheme of things.
imagine the history of humans as a timeline, past present and future. Of course I realize time is not that simple, but I am using this as a functional description of what I am trying to describe. So imagine the history of the Humans as a timeline, there realistically will be a beginning and end. While we do not know the end, people will make decisions that form the outcome.
Just like my life, it will go in a particular way. My choices will contribute to it, whether I choose to follow a cruel path or virtuous path means that my life was going to follow a cruel or virtuous path.
I don't think this is correct. Random events exist, and so the universe can logically go any number of ways. You are using the result to validate a particular path, but the reality is that at any turn some random event could have gone another way to change the outcome.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:01:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
well random events really do not take place, in a pragmatic sense. Maybe in a quantum sense, which is arguable that it is not random but seems random, but physics exist. Maybe I am misunderstanding you here.
if we could look into a crystal ball, see the future and how things turn out. The future would no doubt be already taking into consideration our learning about that future, therefore no matter how we act going forward would be the way in which things were "predetermined" to turn out. The only difference in reality is that we do not have access to that crystal ball
Basically, what we know of quantum mechanics tells us that indeterminable random events occur.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:37:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i mean yes on a quantum level things are unpredictable right now as we understand it, that does not mean that in reality it is actually random, just that we observe it as random currently. if we understood quantum mechanics fully it would not be random
In the discussion you linked, a user says coin flips are random but if we understood the environmental elements of the coin flip(meaning the wind, the force used on the coin, the direction it was pointed, the exact weight of the coin, etc) we could predict exactly how it would land.
If the universe is a quantum fluctuation, then the universe (or the multiverse, depending on your definition) would be in a sense both infinite and eternal.
In a sense, nothing would ever truly die because in an infinite universe, everything would exist in an infinite amount. Therefore, the universe never truly dies and nobody ever truly dies because they will always exist in an infinite amount.
In a sense, the universe is deterministic in a sense that everything exists; and everything will happen. But is random in the sense that we cannot predict the result of random event (like flipping a coin), we only know of the probability of events occuring.
It doesn't really matter if the universe is completely deterministic, completely random, or somewhere in between. There really isn't room for free will.
If the universe is completely deterministic than of course you have no free will. But if it is completely random events will happen at random, including your thoughts, and you have no control over how they turn out. If you did it wouldn't be random. As neither randomness nor determinism allows for free will, why would some combination of the two give you free will?
daemin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:51:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have free will or I do not.
I choose my actions, or I do not.
If I have free will, then I choose my actions.
If I do not choose my actions, then I don't have free will.
If I choose my own actions, then I have reasons for my actions.
If I don't have reasons or my actions, then my actions are random.
If my actions are random, then I do not choose to do them.
By 4 and 7, if I do not have reasons for my actions then I don't have free will.
If I have reasons for my actions, then those reasons cause my actions.
If my reasons cause my actions, then my actions aren't chosen by me.
By 4 and 10, if I have reasons for my actions, then I do not have free will.
By 8 and 11, I do not have free will if I have reasons for my actions, or if I don't.
Is it truly random? Or is it just humanly unpredictable?
This is another philosophical problem: are certain theories โwrongโ or just beyond the scope of human understanding and interpretation.
Iโve looked at quantum physics a fair bit and my basic understanding is that they donโt conform to current interpretations of classical mechanics. That is not to say that they must be random from a mechanical point of view, but we can definitely say that the human brain does not have the knowledge and/or capacity to make predictions for such an arcane phenomenon in physics because we are simply โnot smart enoughโ. At least, not yet.
Sure, when you think about it that way, that seems reasonable, but then you are missing the point of general relativity that says, that all events exist at the same time, meaning that past present and future exist simultaniously, meaning determinism, and quantum mechanics can be deterministic in some sense once you apply many worlds theorem, besides to talk about quantum uncertainty is to actually study it deeply, like you have to know how it goes, since there are things you can knownfor certain, like spin, or energy, or position, it's just what you observe to be certain gives that uncertainty, or so I'm told, haven't had the course yet, and also the bigger universe, the one we observe with our eyes is deterministic, and also large quantum systems, like thermodynamical systems can be predictable, except for individual particles, since there's too many of them
There is no consensus on determinism. Just look up the wiki:
Thus, quantum physics casts reasonable doubt on the traditional determinism of classical, Newtonian physics in so far as reality does not seem to be absolutely determined. This was the subject of the famous BohrโEinstein debates between Einstein and Niels Bohr and there is still no consensus
efie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:52:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe at large by definition is not quantum. The universe at large is classical. Objects have trajectories and their paths are well-defined. Whether or not you call that 'deterministic' is up to you, but the universe at large is far from random.
Just because we currently believe that quantum events are fundamentally random does not make it true. Science has a long history of taking events that appear random and coming up with the means to measure and predict them.
I don't want to sound dismal, but just because the world is not deterministic does not mean free will exists. Whether or not a random event occurred does not mean it was within your control. While free will may exist, I don't believe a quantum argument is relevant.
If humans are physical things, and human consciousness the byproduct of those physical things, then you are right. There is no reason to believe the carbon in your brain and the electric/chemical recations in your brain are somehow not also determined by the same laws of physics as any other electric/chemical reaction.
It really makes you think about our laws and justice system. If determinism is true (as I am deterministically inclined to believe), then that means criminals and their actions are an inevitable byproduct of the starting conditions of the unvierse around them. They commit crimes, not by choice, but by inevitable deterministic destiny. So how is it right to punish them?
dsds548 ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 15:45:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you study law theory, that's exactly what they say. Some of the theory states that the poor upbringing is the result of the law not protecting them as children so that they would grow up to be upstanding citizens. Children who are abused are supposed to be taken away and protected from their parents, but that isn't always the case. In most hardened repeat offenders, you will see a pattern and you can pretty much trace it back to their bad childhood.
However, the law serves more than one purpose and that's why the law still exists. Communication, deterrent, and retribution. The punishment is more a deterrent for people thinking of doing it and retribution for the victims of the crime. It gets really interesting with repeat offenders, because now almost all three are invalid, but do we remove them from society or not?
It's right to punish them because the punishment was deterministically inevitable as well. Some matter (criminal) caused a change to some other matter (crime), and because of this, some other matter (law enforcement) is going to affect them as a reaction (punishment).
The punish is a natural consequence too. A cancer cell has made no decision to be so, but it should still be exterminated
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:25:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the justice system could work better with this view. Because โpunishmentโ could focus mainly on practical considerations: removing dangerous people from society, and rehabilitation. And less on eye-for-an-eye vengeance.
determined by the same laws of physics as any other electric/chemical reaction.
Except you really have no idea what those laws are. We have science and it's set of laws, but at the end of the day science to us is just the best way we have of explaining the physical world at this very instance. Those laws are always changing, and to assume we know them all now is pure folly. It isn't Truth (capital "T").
Pick up a physics textbook today and compare it to one from 1918. A lot has changed and so will our understanding of "those laws" / Truth in another hundred years.
So we can only contemplate the actual purest forms of the laws of physics (i.e. Truth). And there is nothing in our contemplation of what those laws ultimately will be that prohibits consciousness or free-will.
Coroxn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:27:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So how is it right to punish them?
Most first world countries 'rehabilitate', actually.
DoAYCWM ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 13:48:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Aww I read this as "Casual Determinism" and thought it sounded fun
Coroxn ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:26:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are in the perfect goldilocks zone, to me. Intelligent enough to be happy, but not too intelligent to be always aware of how scripted our happiness is.
When you think about it, we are in control of nothing.
What is "we"? If "we" means our brains, bodies, genetics, preferences and all that, then "determinism is true" and "we are in control" can both be true.
I am convinced free will doesn't exist. It was weird at first but you have no free will in the matter to live your life as if it does lol.
dsds548 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 15:38:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Totally agree! The species we are, the gender we are, our genetics, our upbringing... we have absolutely no control over that. Our thoughts and behavior is generally shaped by all these things that we have no control over.
You can read more about some arguments from a compatiblist view. Compatiblism being an ideology whose adherents believe that determinism and free will are compatible ideas. Most lay determinists would consider determinism incompatible with free will, but that may not be as straightforward as it seems.
Carolina Sartorio defends a compatiblist idea of free will by discussing some specific grounding conditions for free will, specifically an actual sequence view of grounds for free will. I do not necessarily agree with her, but it's a compelling and sophisticated case against incompatiblism that you might find interesting. The book is called "Causation and Free Will".
We don't have free will (the concept is actually impossible to define logically because it makes no sense). The only way that could be viewed as a "problem" is if you first ascribed to the fantasy that behavior is somehow causeless.
But causeless behavior actually isn't something to be enamored with, is it? Why desire for behavior to be inexplicable?
LocalGM ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:51:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Those overly toxic-positive people always say shit like "put your mind to it and you can do anything" but you cant change the past. Some things cannot be undone. That and our actions as a result of said things is fate.
All we can do is observe, breathe and attempt to make the best decisions we can from the hand the devils dealt us. Thats the soft determist part of fate.
Does that actually matter though? A lot of people get freaked out by this but whether we have free will or not our lives are going to continue very similar to how theyโve always been and itโs not going to make a difference.
It does if you consider the criminal justice system and the way we punish people for crimes of which sometimes they have no control over. But that's a separate discussion that I'm not completely knowledgeable about.
If nobody is responsible for anything they do then you could argue everything that happens has to happen. So if they are put in prison they should be put in prison. If you use the free will to show the flaws in the justice system from the criminals perspective you have to do it from the judge and juryโs perspective.
We may aswell carry on as things are. If we have free will then nothing should change, if we donโt nothing can. This is why this is one of those philosophical questions that doesnโt bother me.
martixy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:11:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I do believe
And that's where your problem starts.
Quantum mechanics would like a word. As others already noted.
Obviously not a physicist but from what I understand the juryโs out. We know of events that appear to be random, but only because itโs so difficult to observe the mechanisms. But weโd really need a physicist to explain whatโs going on there.
maybe change your definition of โfree willโ to โindividual will.โ Even if itโs all completely determined, what I do is determined by my local determination system.
โIn a way, in our contemporary world view, it's easy to think that science has come to take the place of God. But some philosophical problems remain as troubling as ever. Take the problem of free will. This problem has been around for a long time, since before Aristotle in 350 B.C. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, these guys all worried about how we can be free if God already knows in advance everything you're gonna do. Nowadays we know that the world operates according to some fundamental physical laws, and these laws govern the behavior of every object in the world. Now, these laws, because they're so trustworthy, they enable incredible technological achievements. But look at yourself. We're just physical systems too, right? We're just complex arrangements of carbon molecules. We're mostly water, and our behavior isn't gonna be an exception to these basic physical laws. So it starts to look like whether its God setting things up in advance and knowing everything you're gonna do or whether it's these basic physical laws governing everything, there's not a lot of room left for freedom.
So now you might be tempted to just ignore the question, ignore the mystery of free will. Say "Oh, well, it's just an historical anecdote. It's sophomoric. It's a question with no answer. Just forget about it." But the question keeps staring you right in the face. You think about individuality for example, who you are. Who you are is mostly a matter of the free choices that you make. Or take responsibility. You can only be held responsible, you can only be found guilty, or you can only be admired or respected for things you did of your own free will. So the question keeps coming back, and we don't really have a solution to it. It starts to look like all our decisions are really just a charade.
Think about how it happens. There's some electrical activity in your brain. Your neurons fire. They send a signal down into your nervous system. It passes along down into your muscle fibers. They twitch. You might, say, reach out your arm. It looks like it's a free action on your part, but every one of those - every part of that process is actually governed by physical law, chemical laws, electrical laws, and so on.
So now it just looks like the big bang set up the initial conditions, and the whole rest of human history, and even before, is really just the playing out of subatomic particles according to these basic fundamental physical laws. We think we're special. We think we have some kind of special dignity, but that now comes under threat. I mean, that's really challenged by this picture.
So you might be saying, "Well, wait a minute. What about quantum mechanics? I know enough contemporary physical theory to know it's not really like that. It's really a probabilistic theory. There's room. It's loose. It's not deterministic." And that's going to enable us to understand free will. But if you look at the details, it's not really going to help because what happens is you have some very small quantum particles, and their behavior is apparently a bit random. They swerve. Their behavior is absurd in the sense that its unpredictable and we can't understand it based on anything that came before. It just does something out of the blue, according to a probabilistic framework. But is that going to help with freedom? I mean, should our freedom be just a matter of probabilities, just some random swerving in a chaotic system? That starts to seem like it's worse. I'd rather be a gear in a big deterministic physical machine than just some random swerving.
So we can't just ignore the problem. We have to find room in our contemporary world view for persons with all that that entails; not just bodies, but persons. And that means trying to solve the problem of freedom, finding room for choice and responsibility, and trying to understand individuality.โ
Consciousness is really troubling. Why put someone in the driver seat with no controls? It's terrible to be aware of your mortality and that one day you will die, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Hazza40 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:36:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And there's something slightly different, but somewhat related, which I also like: Most of the actions I take aren't even decided by "me". Let me illustrate:
The thought came to me as I was eating dinner. I have a bit of trouble stopping eating when I'm full, and I was thoughtlessly snacking on grapes and sipping water. I'd intermittently eat a grape, take a sip of water, play with my hair, bounce my leg, or do something else "fidgety". What I realized is that not a single one of those actions was taken with purpose; none were taken "by me". They were all entirely thoughtless. I could "regain control" and stop them and choose to take these actions thoughtfully, but I hadn't been. And I think with most of the actions we take in our day-to-day lives, we aren't.
I'm listening to music and typing this comment. The movement of my fingers is thoughtless since it's muscle memory. As I listen to the song (Triumphant by Royksopp, would recommend if you like... contemplative music) my body sways and my head bobs thoughtlessly. My hands jump off the keyboard as I think about the next thing I want to write, and without thinking I crack my fingers and crack my neck. A small while later, I finish a sentence and take another 'impulsive break' to stretch my back and arms.
As I started this paragraph, I sat up and so automatically adjusted my monitor.
I would argue that all of these actions were taken "not by me". I have power to control them, but I still think that each individual movement was controlled by something less thoughtful. And I don't mean this in the sense that it's my muscles making the movements, but rather that there's a bit of my brain separate from "me" which is giving out the orders.
The explanation that occurs to me right now for this is as follows: The "me" I consider operates at a very high level. Right now, it's pondering the philosophy of this idea. "I" want to put my ideas down into this comment box to transfer them to you. A "non-me" section of my brain fulfills this request, and it's able to do so autonomously because I have mastery over English, my body, and my computer.1
After writing this, I feel kind of weird. I feel like I'm in the back seat of my body, and I don't know who the driver is. Yikes.
1 I think this explanation is a little too strong, but it gets the idea across.
You would like sci-fi novels Blindsight and Exopraxia by Peter Watts where he argues strongly that we as self-aware agents not in control and most of the time are just passenger who thinks he decides something, but decisions were already made by our unconscious mind, who's in charge.
You have the option to pull the trigger on a gun, either you pull it or you don't. Before the outcome happens (you lowering the gun, or pulling the trigger) you are in a superposition of probabilities of either pulling or not pulling.
Until you commit to one of these actions there is not a definite state.
You can always make the case for the entire universe existing for being "determined" but individual human actions, are more or less "free".
But you didnโt author the action. To be cognizant of the action that means you chose the action, which means you need to be cognizant of the action. Itโs a recursive practice. Thereโs no free will on any level. Whatever prompts you to choose to either pull the trigger or not itโs not up to you. Itโs only the illusion of free will.
In a 50/50 scenario wether you want to pull a trigger or not always has the given person knowing full well what options he has.
It's more nuanced than that, obviously - but saying we have "no free will" means that everything was predetermined. But in the moment JUST BEFORE you chose to pull the trigger or not - thats where there is no true predetermined outcome.
The second before you choose to pull the trigger or not - a superposition of either pulling it or not pulling it is created.
It's only when the action is performed the definite state is determined.
I would say free will is a given for concious beings. There is always an option.
Maybe I misunderstand you - but if I was given the choice to pull the trigger or not - not factoring in the intentions - just a simple dare, to pull a trigger - what makes either outcome predetermined?
You're incorrect. It has already been well established through rigorous experimentation that the mind makes decisions sometimes several seconds before we are consciously aware of them. How can it be free will if we are not even conscious of our own decisions. To be conscious of one's decision one has to decide first. Something else is at work here. This is all discounting the obvious timeline of events that landed you with a gun in your hands, the first one being your actual existence of which you had absolutely no decision over, not to mention your upbringing, or your genes.
It has already been well established through rigorous experimentation that the mind makes decisions sometimes several seconds before we are consciously aware of them
I'd like some sources for this.
As I stated. Until the point of the trigger being pulled, there is a superposition of probabilities for either outcome. It's not until right before the action happens that it's determined.
In your mind it might have been determined already due to the circumstances, but everything around you is observing a superposition of each outcome.
Maybe your term of "free will" is flawed then - because free will is a human term. The bottleneck in these debates are humans trying to describe a feature of our reality we don't quite understand yet - consciousness.
If there are more than one option, there is the possibility of another outcome.
To be conscious of one's decision one has to decide first
You're basically saying everything we do is basically 100% math.
I get why'd you say it - but again, this is something far more fundamental than consciouss free will.
If I have the option to pull a trigger or let go of it. There are no 100% certain outcome before the trigger is actually pulled. Our concious decisions are not 100% predetermined. Subconcious decisions are a "guide" and can stimulate certain outcomes - fx some smells in stores are made to compell our subconciousness to be drawn to the item it's associated with- but we can still ignore these subconcious signals.
From your logic, these signals are 100% unavoidable. But then why do we consider both outcomes then? If I pull the trigger serval seconds later (as you claim) than my brain has actually subconsciously made it's decision, then doesn't that indicate that some conscious processing of the situation took effect? The "rigorous experimentation" as you claim are most likely not about "free will" but about the step in between.
Just some food for thought: you can think of the universe as being probabilistic (causes increase the chance of an effect), instead of deterministic (causes cause effects).
So, in any analysis, you can think of what increases or decreases the probability of something happening, instead of whether it causes it or not. It's a more useful way of thinking, and psychologists are turning into it in recent theories.
Take Relational Frame Theory, as an example: any relation between verbal events can be traced back to a history of pairings (you saying "mama", and looking at your mom), which can tell you something about it increasing or decreasing that relation's chance of happening (you calling your mom "mama" in another circumnstance).
ughaibu ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:14:25 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I do believe the universe is deterministic
Why?
Consider these two simple arguments:
1) a determined world is reversible
2) life requires irreversible processes
3) therefore, there is no life in a determined world.
and
1) free will is demonstrable
2) determinism is not demonstrable
3) in any dilemma between a demonstrable claim and an undemonstrable claim, we must prefer the demonstrable.
The concept of learning something new gets really weird with metaphysical solipsism. Because you're basically teaching yourself something that you were not aware of before. So you have to knowingly block yourself from knowing something.
Which can be the case because the laws of logic are just the product of your own mind.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:33:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or someone else imagined it and is feeding you false information. Solipsism is simply the idea that you can only know that your mind exists, not that everything also comes from there.
agage3 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:05:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโd argue that the evidence is extremely overwhelming yet inconclusive that solipsism is not a thing. In a way, solipsism is a perfect example of natural human reasoning: โI believe this because I have seen no evidence to the contrary.โ
Like a lot of kids, I dabbled in solipsism when I was young. It becomes much harder to believe when you have years and years of meeting people and hearing about their own thoughts, emotions and feelings.
I mean it goes the same way around. There's no actual proof the world around me really exists in the way I perceive it, so I'm stuck believing it until the contrary is proven to be true.
As I said I deny solipsism from a purely practical standpoint, as me having a discussion with myself over anything would be pointless so I assume that people around me and their individual minds actually exist.
I never sold it as conclusive proof โ it is certainly a preponderance of evidence though. You canโt possibly think that there is as much evidence of solipsism as there is that the universe exists.
The concept of proof itself could very well be a figment if your imagination, so itโs a bit of a Catch-22 if you are arguing solipsism in the context of reason/logic.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:03:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A preponderance of evidence is not the same as sufficient evidence though, and if we follow the generally accepted definition of knowledge as justified true belief, using perceived observations as evidence when we are questioning those very observations seems to beg the question of whether they are true. This means you have not sufficiently justified your belief and therefore do not know the answer.
Of course the universe exists, otherwise I couldnโt exist to observe it. But everything I observe within it could be false, either of my own imagination or false information being fed into my mind. That is what solipsism argues.
I would say that reason is a part of oneโs mind, as a mind observes and processes observations, and reasoning is a part of that process. The word itself may originate externally, but the concept that word represents actually exists within the mind, and the mind actually exists, so reason actually exists regardless of whether the information reasoned with is false.
A preponderance of evidence is not the same as sufficient evidence though, and if we follow the generally accepted definition of knowledge as justified true belief, using perceived observations as evidence when we are questioning those very observations seems to beg the question of whether they are true. This means you have not sufficiently justified your belief and therefore do not know the answer
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:12:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Alright, Moore believes he has two hands. He definitely perceives two hands, assuming he exists in the first place.
His argument seems to stem from the statement "If the external world exists, I have two hands." His proposition is "I have two hands, the external world exists." But that just begs the question "Do I actually have two hands or do I just think I have two hands?" Converse statements are not a reliable means of proof.
At this point in time, I have spent many hours of free time over the past few years thinking about this, and I can never come up with any actual evidence one way or the other. I have come to the conclusion that there will never be sufficient evidence one way or the other, but I have decided to hold a conscientious belief that the world as I perceive it is real, as it would be impractical to believe otherwise.
I can never come up with any actual evidence one way or the other.
Then you are not thinking hard enough, or you have a very limited view of what evidence is.
Evidence for solipsism: the fact that the human brain is capable of convincing itself that something is true even when it is just an illusion (e.g. dreams, delusions, etc.) For brevity, I will refer to this universal dream/delusion that the concept of solipsism is based on the Illusion. But this evidence finds itself in a Catch-22, because the evidence itself is part of the Illusion, so it's a very weak argument.
Evidence against solipsism: The universal scope of the Illusion requires enormous intellectual capacity, the fact that the Illusion is fully consistent with its own "laws" and never experiences a "glitch in the matrix" so to speak would require enormous processing power, the fact that so many other people (billions perhaps) have asked themselves the same question about whether or not the world exists makes it extremely likely that your questioning the world's existence is an incident of consciousness and not universal truth....And that's just a summary. Really, the cumulative reliability of the laws of the universe, the behavior of other humans, animals and things you interact with on a daily basis. It's no different than the reasoning that the larger the scope of a proposed conspiracy, the less likely that it is true.
I agree that it is pragmatic to dismiss solipsism, but I disagree that there is no evidence one way or the other. The evidence that the world exists in its perceived form far outweighs the evidence against.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:43:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, saying there is no evidence was stupid on my part. I've heard most of it before, it would have been more accurate to say that I have always found the evidence to be inconclusive, never fully convincing me one way or the other. Thanks for calling me out on that.
For evidence for Solipsism, couldn't it be possible though that in a previous life form I created this world and only created myself to separate from my previous being? And that this life became some sort of playground for me? Or would this be reductio ad absurdum at work
I think that is possible โ definitely not absurd or contradictory.
I wasnโt trying to limit the possibilities of how solipsism could function, just providing what I see is the main point of evidence for solipsism. Everyone has had that feeling of waking up from a dream and remembering how real it seemed. Furthermore, in a dream, up can be down, and left can be right, and somehow it all makes sense until we wake up.
Why should solipsism be referred back to the everything is a dream theory? I thought solipsism wasn't about dreaming but more about radical skepticism.
It's just the easiest way to relate to solipsism. I think everyone has dabbled in solipsistic thinking at one time or another, and the reason that we all do that probably has to do with our ability to dream.
I suppose the most radical type of skepticism would be the strongest forms of nihilism -- that knowledge, facts, reality, etc. do not exist.
A preponderance of evidence is not the same as sufficient evidence though....
You are using the word "though", as if I didn't just say this exact same thing. Who are you arguing with, because it's definitely not me.
Let me save you some time on your journey -- only a tiny segment of your beliefs have sufficient evidence to be proven true.
This means you have not sufficiently justified your belief and therefore do not know the answer.
If you set the bar where you are setting it and seeing the world in black and white with no shades of gray, then sure, but you also must acknowledge that you don't know the answer to anything other that proven scientific facts. All of your opinions, from the most reasonable to the most spurious, are equally as worthless as you claim the belief that the world exists is.
Of course the universe exists, otherwise I couldnโt exist to observe it.
I never said this. Again, you are arguing with a straw man. Stick to what I said, and this will go a lot smoother.
That is what solipsism argues.
I'm less concerned about what solipsism argues and more concerned with what it ignores.
I would say that reason is a part of oneโs mind.....
That's your opinion, I suppose.
as a mind observes and processes observations, and reasoning is a part of that process.
Not always. I feel most humans observe and process observation without reasoning at all. The ability of our brain to reason is more or less incidental. It's not designed to reason -- it's designed to recognize patterns and imitate. You could argue that our most primitive form of reasoning is "trial and error", but think of how many people do the same thing over and over again with the same negative outcome expecting a different result?
Humans are adept at surviving collectively -- as a species -- but the capabilities of an individual human to reason are not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are using the word "though", as if I didn't just say this exact same thing
Yes, I suppose you did, I must have still been waking up, since I wrote that in bed. I should have stated that I was arguing against there being a preponderance of evidence, in which case my next statement would have made more sense, as I assumed your evidence is based on observations made of the world that is being questioned. Having read some of your other comments I can see this is not the case however.
All of your opinions, from the most reasonable to the most spurious, are equally as worthless as you claim the belief that the world exists is.
Yes, I agree. Thinking about solipsism is the reason why I rarely state that I know something, only that I believe or think things. Things are so rarely black and white that most of what I believe I am (or try to be) conscientious could be wrong.
I never said this.
as there is that the universe exists.
When I read your statement I think I became overly nitpicky about the words you used, as I mistook the universe existing as existence itself, as opposed to one's perception being incorrect. Because of this, I thought there was a misunderstanding of what solipsism is. I am sorry about that, I was wrong.
That's your opinion, I suppose.
Yes, I suppose I wrote that as a gut thought. Having reflected on it more, I believe my argument for this comes from the question of where reason resides. I think most would agree that reason itself has no physical form. The only other place I could think of is the mind, although I would be interested in hearing other ideas. I suppose from a purely materialist standpoint since the mind only arises from chemical processes reason is simply switches flipping, but I usually fall somewhere inside dualism, which really muddies the water. So yeah, it's purely an opinion.
The ability of our brain to reason is more or less incidental
I'm not saying every mind reasons well, just that reason is a part of the mind's process (if not a large part for all) and not somewhere(?) else. If reason is a part of the mind, and the mind is known to exist, then the parts of the mind exist, meaning that reason definitely exists and is not a figment of one's imagination, meaning there is no catch-22 and solipsism can be reasonable. Does that make more sense? It still reason resides within the mind, which, as stated by both of us now, is an opinion.
I agree. If we assume that reason exists in the mind, then there is no Catch-22.
My personal belief is that reason (and when I say reason, I am referring to logic/mathematics/proofs/the order of the universe) is something that exists outside of ourselves, and our brains have evolved to allow us to "tap into" reason, insofar as it helps us survive as a species. You can imagine how "magical" it must have seemed in Medieval times when an astronomer was able to calculate the exact date and time of a total solar eclipse. Now we know a lot more about science, of course, collectively as a species. But if there were a nuclear holocaust and only a few thousand people survived, no one would know how to calculate a solar eclipse. That doesn't mean that it can't be done -- just that the method needs to be rediscovered.
As a former scientist and passionate advocate for scientific reasoning, this is the model of the universe that I subscribe to. There is an order to things that we investigate, discover, calculate, harness, use and admire. We do it using our big brains that have evolved over millennia to be more and more capable of survival. Our ability to harness the order of the universe was a bit of an evolutionary accident. Our physical traits for survival have always been woefully lacking, but our mental ability to invent new ways to shelter, clothe and feed ourselves in a number of harsh environmental conditions has continuously improved upon itself, up until the point where we learned to create fire.
How so? It's only a principle by which you choose a proposed explanation so you can test and possibly falsify it easier not a proof for it being correct.
I guess I donโt see why that makes it meaningless. Instead of trying to show why something has no meaning, could you maybe explain how you see meaning arising? Like what to you gives something meaning?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:05:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How can you know a thought before itโs been thought?
you don't have to prove it, since what you should think is true is not what is proven, but what has the most evidence. It has more or less none and reality existing has a ton, so its dead in the water as an idea.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:13:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think Sartre does a tidy job of rebutting solipsism with and extension of the cogito. The short version is: I think, so I know I exist. I also feel shame. Shame necessitates an "other", someone who can reduce you to an object of shame, and as such, other people must exist so that I am able to experience shame.
[deleted] ยท 136 points ยท Posted at 13:07:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The multiverse theory is pretty mind blowing and is especially fun because it uses not only philosophy but physics, religion, astronomy and a whole whack of other disciplines.
[deleted] ยท 52 points ยท Posted at 13:13:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 13:15:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester?wprov=sfla1
It is possible to test if a bomb is a dud or not, by exploding it in an alter ative universe, and observing how photons being disrupted in that other universe fail to interact with its counterparts in this universe when the waveform collapses.
Towerss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:25:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Alle shows with some physics or science theme eventually starts shoehorning that boring shit into it
I like to think about the opposite. There is one universe, one version of me. Living the one and only life I will ever have. The only death I will ever have. There is no version of me with a better life. There is just me and the rock I reside.
I had to explain to someone what the Multiverse theory was, after about an hour I got fed up and told him that in one of the universe's he's Batman. All of a sudden it kicked in.
I hate multiverse theory because it's equally baseless and abused. It's popular with people who want to disseminate their ego across a spectrum of good and bad identities to reduce focus on the self, and sci-fi writers who want universe-scale implications with the addition of a hat or moustache.
I see a schism coming in contemporary quantum-new age-atheist-religions, with multiverse vs simulation vs singularity being the main disagreeing tenets.
This is something I have thought about a while, and I don't think that there's a formalized version of it, but if there is I would like to see it.
Imagine time travel were possible, even if there are some restrictions like "the past can't be changed" or whatever. Well if that's the case then you and a younger version of you should be able to exist at the same time.
If that's true then then you and younger you are not the same person.
If you and younger you are not the same person then "younger you" is dead in the future even though he grew up to be you because he doesn't exist there.
If that is the case then there is no difference between 'dying' and 'living' from the perspective of any version of past you, whether that is the you from 10 years ago or 10 seconds.
I think discussing this relies on a couple of clarifications:
How does the time travel work, exactly? There are many resolutions to time travel-related paradoxes, and perhaps they apply here, too. For instance, if time travelling transports me to another, duplicate but rewinded, universe, then of course the young "me" isn't me.
What exactly do you mean by "you and younger you are not the same person". Controlled by the same conscience (whatever that is?)? Molecularly equivalent? Molecularly equivalent to me when I was that age (and we're not even considering time relativity)? Do you mean that "younger me" would make the same decisions as me when I was that age, given the same scenario?
1) The specifics of the time travel don't matter, it's just meant to get you to think about conscious states.
2) I mean that from the perspective of your mind younger you and present you are completely distinct from one another. The alternative version of the thought experiment is to say "imagine your entire physical structure could be disassembled such that your mind no longer exists, and then your body is reassembled with the same matter in exactly the same configuration as before so that your mind functions again. Now imagine that not only do they do that but they take equal matter from another source and make an exact duplicate of yourself."
If you can do that, what is the difference between that happening and a moment in time passing? You and duplicate you aren't the same mind. It doesn't make sense to claim that one of them is "you" and the other isn't, and there's no good reason to say that either of them are their past self either.
Okay, if I am understanding you correctly you are saying: Each passing moment in time causes a physical change in our bodies. If we accept that two physically different bodies are not the 'same' person, then we are never the same person as we were a moment ago. That's really cool.
It's unclear to me, though, whether you're talking about this in terms of identity or consciousness. If you're talking about identity, I have a response: I think identity is primarily a function of continuity.
Consider that over our lifetimes, all the atoms in our body will be replaced. Since it's a slow, continuous process, our notion of identity stays intact. If, however, someone were to have all (or, say, half) the atoms replaced at once, the question of identity would be a lot harder. Similarly, as people's brains rot away, they maintain their identity. If, however, you replaced my brain right now with my brain in ten years, hardly anyone would call me the same person. This is really just an instantiation (and possible solution) of Theseus' ship.
To be honest, I can't remember my original thought process when I came to this conclusion, so I can't remember my strongest argument. I hope what I've said will suffice.
I primarily look at it in terms of the concept of death and consciousness rather than of identity. Mainly be cause identity of a human is largely arbitrary or at least subjective. For example, does what I am include my arm? Yes, until I lose my arm. Does it include my temporal lobe? Yes, until I lose my temporal lobe.
I further consider it in terms of mind uploading. Many people consider "mind uploading" to not be true immortality because your biological self will still die. And I posit that there is no meaningful difference for the "self" continuing and not continuing to live in the first place.
The you of ten seconds ago being terminated isn't effected, and there's no meaningful difference between your biological mind continuing to exist and a copy of your biological mind continuing to exist because your biological mind is just a copy of your mind passed along the vector of time.
I will say I'm not defending this as iron clad, there are other ideas that can make it seem strange.
For example, if you have two machines running exactly the same simulation with the same minds in it, and they simulate the same things at the same time, and you turn off one of the machines, what does that imply? My thoughts on the matter would seem to indicate that death only effects beings that 'would have been' but not for the inability to make a copy of their prior selves in the next time slice. But yet in this two simulations example the versions of themselves that would have been will be and will not be so has an evil occurred here or not?
I'm basically on board until the last paragraph. I can't really follow your example. Can you elaborate?
Also, you seem to be talking about time as a discrete idea. I don't think this is necessarily true. I don't think it invalidates your argument, but I still think it's important to consider that time may be discrete but also may be continuous.
I think the flaw in this logic is stating that "younger you is dead because he doesn't exist in the future". He isn't dead. He became you. Why would that inherently be death?
It is death of the mind. The mind of younger you doesn't exist anymore. It is not the mind of your future or present self. Whether your body dies 10 years from the present or right this moment past you is unaffected.
Why do you need the time travel? If i understand correctly you are saying that young mind is dead because it doesnt exist any more. But that is "normal" because every day we change a bit, and over time that adds up.
So if you go way back, for example when you were 3 years old, you could say that that personality is dead because every single thing about it changed by this point. And then by the time you were 7 for example, you learned some basic things that you feel are true to this day and will never change. So all of your versions (like programs that update) before certain age are dead because every single thing about them changed.
So yes, for me this situation is the same as the problem of "replacing all parts of something" and i think that if you do that, then that thing is dead, it doesnt exist any more.
Yea, it's like the transport problem in star trek. People think it's a problem because they think "oh no that person died" because their consciousness was halted. But in reality there's no difference between using a transporter and a moment passing in time.
Hm never thought about connecting those 2 things together. So i guess the transporter is just a much faster version of this "problem". You change in an instant something that would take a lot of time. And i guess thats why people see it as a problem. When its slow and constantly happening you dont really notice it but when it happens instantly...like aging i guess.
m0dulate ยท 74 points ยท Posted at 17:46:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's a possibly good explanation. Perhaps causality only exists within our universe, so the system without was able to produce it spontaneously.
This is really good, I've never heard about this reasoning. From now on, this will be my go-to explanation for the existence of this universe. Thanks. :)
Actually, though: The Super-Universe I have proposed would allow it to happen since, being free from causality, it is able to do anything without reason. Thus, it could produce our Universe, which has causality, without reason.
Started thinking about this when someone mentioned what happens if you reach the end of the expanding universe. It made me think of the Big Bang and why that even happened. Why is there anything at all? Shouldnโt there just be nothing?
If there was nothing, there would be no way for this question to exist. But because we exist, there is something, therefore, there shouldn't be nothing. Nothing, by definition, cannot exist because there is something.
A better question is how could nothing ever be? Something can't emerge from nothing, obviously, and nothing cannot, by its own definition, exist. The only other option is something, which makes sense since we exist.
It's not so much the inclusion of existence that's incredible to me, but rather the absence of nothing. You can't have something that can not exist in the universe -- if you could, it would exist, even as a concept.
That's an unanswerable question, and is often simply referred to as "The Question". It will plague every conscious being for all time, until the heat death of the universe, in EVERY universe that ever has or ever will exist.
The problem is that the question itself is a moving goal post, and it will always move. A long time ago, the question could have been worded as "what created the stars and the planets" ... and we answered that.
So the goal post moves and "why is there something rather than nothing" becomes a NEW question.
We can maybe answer the questions "What created our universe", "What cause the big bang", and so on. But every time we do, the goal post of "The Question" moves further back.
It's just like a child asking "why?" over and over. No matter how many levels of "why?" you answer, the child just keeps asking "why?" after each explanation.
Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe some intelligent species in some universe at some time will finally get to the absolute bottom of the chain, but I doubt it. And the odds that it will be humanity that does so are pretty damned slim.
And, as another comment in this chain said, it's also possible that we are looking at the question all wrong because of our one-directional understanding of causality. There are plenty of theories out there which regard causality as bi-directional in time, so it's possible that something exists because something exists (if that makes sense). Causality could just as easily be the case that events in the future cause events in the past, or something like that.
Or it could be the case that causality as we know it entirely is simply a function of our particular universe with it's particular laws of physics, and that the greater "multiverse" or whatever you want to call it, does not rely on causality in any way to trigger events. The question of "why" such a multiverse exists, or "why" it spawns universes (like our own) could be a completely invalid question. "Why" may have no meaning in that kind of landscape.
For you to wonder about existence, you must exist.
There's no why to it; it is just a rephrasing of the self-indication assumption. If you didn't exist, you couldn't wonder about why you existed; only extant observers wonder about their existence.
To explain it a different way (at least according to my interpretation). If you leave a comically large amount of hydrogen in a single place, it will undergo nuclear fusion and become a star. That star becomes a supernova and spreads cosmic dust throughout space. Cosmic dust eventually becomes planets, one of those planets eventually develops life, one of those organisms eventually becomes intelligent and one of those intelligent organisms eventually becomes philosophicaly inclined to ask why itโs here.
Tons of energy erupts from a point, develops into quarks and then sub-atomic particles in a stupidly hot plasma soup, still rapidly rocketing outwards, and once it cools down enough to become Hydrogen, it will begin making systems of stars and what not.
A comically large amount of hydrogen somewhere would create a black hole
mtutty ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:06:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like Douglas Adams.
rkm7878 ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 02:00:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Life. Iโm actually here. Sitting in my recliner typing this message sitting on top of a planet that is spinning and hurling through a seemingly infinite space. As I sit in my comfortable home wars are raging. People are killing and being killed. There are man made rules that I must follow to avoid being placed into a prison. People are starving and others are paying a fortune for a meal at a fine restaurant. Life is interesting.
[deleted] ยท 75 points ยท Posted at 22:05:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
shdwrnr ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:05:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Murder is taking a human life unlawfully and with intent to kill. A legally ordered execution is lawful. So long as the process is sound and the steps are correct, the justness or righteousness of the act are immaterial.
A properly executed death penalty cannot be murder.
ajmeb53 ยท 108 points ยท Posted at 15:28:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone has their own little habits and weird thoughts and their own lives and fears and whatever else, and it makes me realize that deep down we're all scared little kids who have no fucking clue what we're doing. We're all experiencing this weird, unpredictable, uncertain thing called life, and it's different for every single one of us because of how we perceive the world from within ourselves, yet we all still experience the same feelings of emotion from time to time. We're ultimately all alone in our own consciousness, but still all connected and related.
That you will literally never know what someone else perceived. They can never show you their perception. For example I only know what I see as red but what your notice as red could look different and I would never know.
True we do agree on matching colors but say someone was colorblind and didnโt know it. You both look at a stop sign and agree that itโs red although red for him is really green and heโs been associating green as red for so long that thatโs what he perceives as red. So just because you agree, it doesnโt make your perception equal.
Well I associate what I perceive as "Red" as an alarming and more powerful color, while what I perceive as "Lavender" or "Sky Blue" is calm and quiet. Does your perception of that align with mine?
I love reading books on philosophy, sociology, biology, etc. for fun. I won't claim to understand all of it, but I get general ideas. And over the past 6ish months one thing that's bugged me is the consciousness and perception. I find the topic of what reality is super interesting and so I've been trying to throw together a theory of reality - for my own personal interest, just to see if I can make sense of it for myself. Anyway, I've broken it down into 3 basic statements:
It's something I come back to every coupe of weeks and it drives me to wanna keep reading more! I'd love any book, or documentary recommendations, or even any input. Haven't really shared this with anyone
I think perception is more important than reality. (What even is reality?) If I tell you that I am from Texas and have always worn a cowboy hat for all the years you have known me, that might as well be reality if you never find out.
It's not directly related but it reinforced, among other things, my beliefs on this very topic. It's my favourite documentary because it changed my perception of people and it made me a more productive, motivated and kinder person. I never believed in free will, not really, but this documentary put it in so understandable terms that everything became clearer after seeing it.
Can god kill himself? I forgot the philosopher (sorry professor) but it basically says if god can kill himself then he isnโt god because god shouldnโt be able to die, but if I god canโt kill himself then he isnโt god because god should be able to kill anything.
Yeah, the good old omnipotence "paradox". God can't exist because he can't be bald. If he could be bald then he couldn't be a perfect being cause to be perfect you need glorious hair.
Something that doesnt involve killing the God (and invoking the rage of your believing collocutor):
Can the God create a stone that he cant lift? If the answer is no then he isnt omnipotent, and if the answer is yes then there is something he cant do so again not omnipotent.
The same response as to the original question, God cannot do contradictions. He cannot make a square circle, because by nature a circle us not square. The same applies to making a rock that he cannot lift
God by nature can not do everything. He cannot create a square circle because by nature a circle is not square. It is a contradiction. By nature God cannot die. This means that a dead God is a contradiction. Therefore it is not a contradiction that he cannot kill himself.
krutch1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:27:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does that mean then that God is subject to natural law?
God by nature is all good. Therefore he could not make or do something bad. Killing himself would be bad, therefore he couldn't do it. This means that it is not a contradiction that he cannot do it
The problem with this is it assumes god is a physical being.
CFCkyle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:13:02 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I heard it as can he create a rock even he can't lift. If he can't create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it he isn't omnipotent because there's something he can't do, but if he can create a rock he can't lift he still isn't omnipotent because he can't lift it.
If itโs theoretically possible to simulate a world so you canโt differentiate it from the real one (and it is. Theoretically.) then itโs possible to simulate 1 billion worlds.
If itโs possible to simulate 1 billion worlds then the chances that we are living in the real one are slim to none.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:23:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, since we're going all speculation here, why not just add that there could be infinity amount of either.
In the end, does it matter? If we are in a simulation, we can't do much about it. I'd rather just live my life happy I'm me and I can experience something, even if it isn't "real". If we are just a simulation, I'm glad it's one where love exists, where you can make friends, where amazing and beautiful things can and do happen. It's cheesy, but you can't deny that that is pretty cool in itself.
It doesn't matter, but it's interesting to think about nonetheless. And yes, even if we are in a simulation we are completely real.
Knever ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:22:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, at least you are. All of the rest of us are just computer programs. So, to answer that question in the back of your mind: No, other people don't masturbate as much as you, since you're the only real person here!
There's also the issue of computational power and storing information. The universe(s) closer to reality than our own would either need a way of storing infinite information, or have matter that can store much denser information than our own universe to be practical.
As someone once put it "what is the minimum amount of matter that you would need to perfectly simulate an electron? An electron" And by extension the minimum amount of universe you would need in order to simulate a universe (completely) would be a universe.
Of course it is possible to approximate things so I suppose it is possible our "planet" is a simulation and so our "observed" universe could also be a simulation.
And as for storing infinite information, I do not know if that is possible, but what little I do know of physics makes me believe it is not possible.
It could be that each universe is just another simulation. Just like swinging the pendulum of one of those nifty sand art doohickies never produces the exact same results, clicking go on multiple simulations/universes never produces the exact same results. Round and round we go!
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:24:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, I just wrote this in response to another posting talking about this exact thing. Whether or not a simulation exists, or that we are living in a simulation, is not related to how many simulations there are. In other words, the chance of living in a simulation if there is one simulation is the same as if there are a googolplex of simulations. No matter how many simulations you imagine, it doesn't reduce the likelihood that we are living actual reality and not a simulation.
But what if "actual reality" is just a simulation, and never existed in the first place?
Either way, if one assumes we are in "actual reality", or that we are a simulation, does either assumption make oneself less "real"? Does it affect one's existence? Does this fall back on "I think therefore I am"? It doesn't matter if this is all real or fake, its the reality we are in. Just like touching fake boobs; they sure feel real to me!
If there are infinite realities, wouldn't it be more likely to have your consciousness form within one of the infinite human bodies, rather than in one of 7 billion on earth?
Basically, aren't you assuming consciousness forms in a non-random way? If it were random, it would have been equally likely for my mind to "spawn," in your body as it was to "spawn," in me.
This is my main issue with a lot of grandiose theories like this. They rely on a VERY specific set of assumptions that in no way should just be assumed to be correct.
Yes, the necessary preconditions are what sink this one. They seem somewhat reasonable on the surface, but become less and less likely the more they are examined.
bezdeth ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:47:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is quite interesting. What would effect the chance that we are in a real/simulated one which would mean the others are more/less likely?
One of the main things that needs to be grasped is the concept of point of view. For you to be in a simulated reality, some assumptions must be true. For you to be part of a simulated reality farm, more assumptions must be true. This reduces the likelihood of the possibility.
The problem is that it seems less likely because you are thinking of if I am standing outside a room and looking in at a billion simulated realities and one real one, surely the chance of choosing the actual reality must be smaller. That is true, but it isn't what we are talking about. Whether or not you exist in a simulated reality is not an external choice.
My problem with this theory is that it relies too much on assumptions. It assumes that any civilization capable of creating such a simulation will unquestionably do so. Now we could say that we as humans would definitely do so but the advanced civilization capable of creating the simulation may not be human and we really can't say what an alien civilization will or won't do because they may not think anything like us. We can't assume that human thoughts and behaviors universally apply to all intelligent life.
Can I introduce you to a game called Sid Meier's Civiliazation? It's a strategy game where you control a world simulation to develop sciences and agriculture, and civilizations. You get to take your simulation through history from early Hunter gatherers to, most recently, space colonization. Sound familiar?
The assumption that the advanced civilization to create the simulation may or may not think anything like us, is interesting. The probability of humanity being the only intelegent species in the universe is unlikely, and surely a waste of space. So would the probability of there being just two, three, or four intelegent species in the universe. However many there are or might be, humanity cannot be the only one to enjoy games and simulations. All life has similarities, and I would venture that if there are other forms of life in the universe, then there are multiple forms of life, and at least one of those is similar to humanity in that they just might have their own, more advance version of Sid Meier's Civilization that we are living in right now.
Yes, it's all based on assumptions, but it's a fun thought experiment. Besides, it's all just "theories," right?
I think it is specious to think even we as humans would do it if we could. Who knows how great the cost would be? We could feed and clothe everyone in the world comfortably and all live in harmony, but there is no freakin way we will. The relationship between what humans can do and what they actually will do is nowhere close to one to one.
Maybe that evidence IS here in our simulation, we just can't see it. Perhaps we are three dimensional beings represented in a 4 dimensional world. All the evidence to give away our simulated reality is in the 4 dimension. In the same way computer graphics are 3D objects represented on a 2D screen, our reality is a 4d simulation represented in a 3D world.
Math is a description of the world; I think people understand it to be the definition of the world. And yes, there are physical rules to be had, but bugger if we know how accurate our approximations of them are are across all conditions.
How can they be present in our reality? (Assuming that we aren't in a simulation)
[deleted] ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 17:26:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, our own universe has a limit on how much information can be stored in it. If each digit could be stored on some amount of atoms, then the total number of atoms in the universe is a limiting factor in how far we could calculate the value of pi.
[deleted] ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 18:34:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's important to note that the lack of an ability to calculate the decimal expansion of pi says nothing about it's mathematical existence, at least for those of us who are not constructivists.
Coroxn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:23:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And those of us who are constructivists don't have the mental wherewithal to consider transcendental numbers anyhow.
What we label as "pi" exists as a concept. It's not like numbers are anything but a way of describing the stuff that exists. Take a look at the "discovering" vs. "inventing" math debate. The simulation doesn't absolutely need pi, so far as I'm aware. It'd just need something like the equation for a circle.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:06:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Infinity goes forever, but you could never write it all down. Is it still infinite?
Pi is not an infinite number. Pi is a ratio that cannot be expressed in decimal form with a finite number of digits. You have to be very careful with the use/application of the word infinite, and irrational numbers are not infinite numbers.
From a person that knows absolutely nothing about math, it seems logical that Pi is actually infinite, since it is based on an equation, and we see all possibilities within it (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) that will be divided, so this just keeps on happening, this will never change, so it is infinite in that sense, /r/understanditlikeimfive
pi is no more infinite than any other number. 3 isn't just 3, it's 3.00000000... pi's eternal randomness is just an artifact of how we choose to encode numbers. if instead of base 10 we used base pi, pi would be 1 and regular numbers would probably all be infinitely random
You mean transcendental numbers? Well it's math, it's the same whether it's in a simulation or not. 4*(1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...) will always be pi (and so would Chudnovsky's formula and others) and that's pretty obviously the same number anywhere because all the numbers in the formula are constant.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:31:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a common misconception, pi is not infinite. In fact, it is between 3 and 4. If you are referring to the description of pi in base 10, that is independent of the existence of pi, since an equivalent definition depends only on the ratio of the circumference of a circle with it's radius, and I'm sure we can both agree that any decent simulation must contain a notion of circles, even if abstract.
There is also an important distinction about what a number is, from a non-platonist point of view, pi is nothing more than an abstract concept, and the same goes for 3, sqrt(2) or 15/17. They are constructed to model things we find interesting (properties of circles, quantity, proportion, euclidean geometry, etc.) but that does not mean that they are 'present' in reality, if we can even assign an objective meaning to what that would be.
Kahzgul ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:27:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can represent pi as a formula rather than a number, and thus store it as that formula. When you need the raw number, you don't need the whole (infinite) thing, but rather only need it down to a specific level of significant digits. even if you're writing out the first fifteen quadrillion digits of pi, that's basically nothing compared to infinity.
I mean it's only infinite in theory. The numbers are only revealed so far as we calculate them and the amount we have calculated will always be finite. Whatever the next number in the sequence is, doesn't matter because we haven't calculated it yet.
theoretically if one could accurately simulate our universe with all particles and forces using what we know now as a reference point, then it would be possible to predict the future by advancing the simulation ahead of our current time. This is effectively impossible though.
joehx ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 20:24:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
no it wouldn't. because any simulation would end up having to simulate itself, forming a kind of infinite loop
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:51:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That would last for a very short amount of time. Millionths of seconds if not more or less. Imagine it like for every decition you make it changes the next outcome.
As soon as one atom interacted with another it eould branch off a new universe where they didnt interact and one that they did. Exponentially growning every time they collided
A computer capable of simulating our universe at anywhere near real-time speed, let alone faster (to do predictions) would not fit in our universe. Also, it existing in our universe would change the state of our universe such that it would no longer be represented by the simulation.
Your phrasing of this is slightly incorrect. It's not that you could simulate a billion worlds, but that there would be a chain of world simulating world simulating world, and in that your chance of being in the original is slim.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:10:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Jarte ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:00:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One problem is whether it is possible the human mind needs a perfect simulation. If not then causation would not necessarily hold in a simulated reality, thus logic is unreasonable and unnecessary. Therefore, the claim(we exist in a simulation) does not necessarily follow. Essentially, if we conclude humans can have flawed logic and can still operate with flawed deductions, a flawed simulation is highly likely. A flaw in reality would necessarily effect the totality of reality, therefore logic is not true in a simulation; only in Reality could the claim of simulation even be made and held as logically possible, therefore we must exist in Reality.
The way I heard it was that a perfectly simulated world would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which , etc
I came up with an interesting side thought to that. If it turns out we are in a simulation, then the universe can't be infinite, because it would be impossible to create an infinitely big simulated world. Or the other way around: if we somehow discover that the universe really is infinite, then we can't be in a simulation.
Towerss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:15:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The only way we can be simulated is if the universe where the simulation computer exists has much, much, much smaller elementary particles than us. The most efficient simulation possible is where 1 atom (or electron) in the computer simulates another atom perfectly. Obviously you'd in practice need more space than this. Basically you'd need a machine at least as large as the universe to simulate it. You might ask "what if everything is hollow or a projection?" Well when we look at things far away, the physics act identical to how you'd expect it to act if all atoms there were simulated, and even if it's "rendered" only when inspecting it, the computer would have to keep track of the physics somehow when we're not inspecting so that it looks like it has run in real time when we look at it again. In practice it requires the same amount of processing space as simulating the entire universe.
You don't have to simulate everything down to the atom though, it just has to be "close enough" to fool an observer.
An observer that is a product of the simulated universe has no reference point other than the simulation. In other words maybe our universe doesn't make sense/follow rules perfectly but it's all we know.
Towerss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:06:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But we can observe the indirect effects of those small things, if it can simulate that then it is as if it simulated those small things all along. There are things about our universe that has to be true even in universes that don't abide by our physics.
The situation does not have any empirical evidence to be tested against, it isnโt a falsifiable or verifiable (Karl popper, Vienna circle ideas - respectively). And really, as a theoretical idea, it comes down to a matter of semantics, and as Wittgenstein stated in the Tractatus: ~ โthat of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silenceโ ... or words to that effect.
But, if the simulated world cannot be differentiated from the real world, then what about it makes it less real?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:28:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't there a limit to computational power? It's not like we can use a computer to simulate two computers, and use the results of the two computers to effectively double CPU power.
KPC51 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:01:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
bverezub ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 20:41:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I could be the only actual โhumanโ. From my perspective, Iโm the only one that exists. You might be able to pass all the tests that make you โhumanโ, but you canโt and never will be able to prove that there is anything behind those eyes.
No youโre just dealing with an inexperienced reddit user lol....
Sike Iโm actually a simulated human inside your consciousness and this is just the shit that Iโm programmed to say to make you think that everyone around you is also experiencing consciousness when in reality you are alone.
Loosely, acceptance and contentment with oneโs life in all of its minute details. In a way that one could happily live the same life over and over for all of eternity.
Amor Fati is entangled with his notion of Eternal Recurrence.
I'm tired right now. I have work to do. Being tired is a bad feeling, and the work is causing me stress.
What does he say I do? Accept those negative feelings and be at peace with them? Then I still feel bad. I could live a life in which I accept my emotion but still feel awful the whole time; I wouldn't consider that 'replayable'.
If I'm instead supposed to feel good somehow, how? I suppose I could reorient my view on the work I have to do, framing it in a cosmic context so that it, and its consequences, are trivial. But more primal emotions? Hunger? Thirst? Fatigue?
While a notion alone doesn't quell something as primal as hunger or thirst, Perception precipitates Action, and then Will, at least according to Ryan Holiday in โThe Obstacle Is The Way.โ Lifeโs obstacles and hardships are inescapable aspects of the human condition, Suffering seems to be inextricable. Further, looking at Camusโ Myth of Sisyphus, it is when Sisyphus acknowledges the futility of his senseless task โand certainty of his fate, he is freed to realize the adburdity of his situation and reach a state of contented acceptance.โ
Your first sentence seems to be in contrast with the rest of your comment. It seems to imply that the power in us is that we may act towards a goal (of happiness). The rest seems to say that the power is in acceptance, which gives contentment.
Also, I accept that we may reach "contented acceptance". But that is not happiness. In fact, I would argue it's not necessarily a positive emotion at all, just neutral. And the argument, too, seems to then be that we should lower our expectations as much as possible so that we'll never be discontent.
Also, what comes with contentment? Certainly, in my eyes, a loss of aspiration. If I am happy and contented with the world, and my state in it, as is, why would I ever do anything?
Sorry if my thoughts are jumbled or I come off as aggressive. It's pretty late, I have work to do, and I'm not really proofreading.
I would argue that working towards a goal should come with careful examination of what such a goal is. If my goal is to โbe guy who gets married,โ then there's not much free will left for my identity once i achieve such a thing. But do any of us set a goal as โone thingโ above all others? Maybe for some, but I'd speculate hardly for others.
However, happiness and a search for it is a dangerous game, especially if one has no definition or understanding of why one would search for such a โthingโ as an โultimate/permanent goalโ (especially when any form of it is abound in day-to-day life.) Pain aversion, suffering avoidance, among other reasons for โseeking happinessโ as a permanent state of mind are trite and overused, and better suited for a quick self help read rather than a purpose one could devote a lifetime to. But, happiness is not central to Amor Fati, nor Sisyphus. Happiness wasn't previously mentioned either, so if anything I hope it could contribute something to your argument.
Contentment is never Compromise.
If one has set โhappinessโ (and whatever that means to that person) as a goal and one has achieved such a thing, then surely, there is nothing left to do about anything, at least according to someone that doesn't share a similar goal.
Hm. Because I have trouble following arguments, and I think we have deviated some from the original topic, I am going to enumerate through what you have said, state my interpretation, and respond:
I would argue that working towards a goal should come with careful examination of what such a goal is. If my goal is to โbe guy who gets married,โ then there's not much free will left for my identity once i achieve such a thing. But do any of us set a goal as โone thingโ above all others? Maybe for some, but I'd speculate hardly for others.
1) One should examine their goals when setting them
I agree. But the way I look at it, it's no so much about considering the consequences as it is about finding what your deepest inner desire is, and going with that.
2) Most people don't have one main goal
I opine1 that everyone does. Everyone wants to feel good (I use 'feeling good' as an analog to your 'happiness', though I prefer 'feeling good' because it is more general and flexible). That's our end-game. All of our actions are done so that we feel good, in one way or another. Even complex and selfless ones.
I eat to satiate my hunger, which makes me feel good. This is simple.
A more complex one: A father slaves away at work in order to support his family. He hates his work, and it depresses him. But he knows that what he is doing is fundamentally good, and this makes him feel good. If he didn't get this final sense of 'right' within him, he wouldn't be so selfless. Examples like this are at the heart of this idea: that even an act as selfless as this is deeply rooted in feeling good (and thus in selfishness. This is the main point of my philosophy as a whole, that all beings are selfish, but is not the main point in relation to our conversation).
And (this is a bit of a tangent) I want to note that I don't mean selfish as a bad or negative word here, just a neutral one. I accept that we are all selfish, and that's okay. But there's selfish like I mean here, and colloquial selfish, which is bad.
1 Truthfully, I'm not 100% sure about this argument, but I want to present it anyway.
However, happiness and a search for it is a dangerous game, especially if one has no definition or understanding of why one would search for such a โthingโ as an โultimate/permanent goalโ (especially when any form of it is abound in day-to-day life.) Pain aversion, suffering avoidance, among other reasons for โseeking happinessโ as a permanent state of mind are trite and overused, and better suited for a quick self help read rather than a purpose one could devote a lifetime to. But, happiness is not central to Amor Fati, nor Sisyphus. Happiness wasn't previously mentioned either, so if anything I hope it could contribute something to your argument.
1) A search for happiness is a dangerous game
I suppose. But it's what we do. Again, I think that we all strive towards one thing: feeling good.
2) We should have a definition for happiness (or any goal)
I don't think a definition is necessarily. Without one, I can still note what does and doesn't make me feel good, and strive towards feeling good.
3) One cannot devote their lifetime to happiness
But why not? Again, I argue that it's what we all do. Anything more 'profound' that we devote our lives to is just a roundabout way of feeling good. I am a person who wants to feel accomplished. I tend to feel bad when I'm listless, and feel good when I am working and accomplishing things. So, I strive towards working on personal projects much of the time. But note why I'm doing it: to feel good, and to avoid feeling bad.
Contentment is never Compromise.
If one has set โhappinessโ (and whatever that means to that person) as a goal and one has achieved such a thing, then surely, there is nothing left to do about anything, at least according to someone that doesn't share a similar goal.
1) Once you reach your goal, there is nothing else to do.
I agree, but only for what I understand to be Nietzsche-like contentment; that is, unconditional contentment. If you are always content, then you will never be pushed to do anything.
However, I don't think this is true for goals in general. If my goal is to feel good, and I feel good, then I stop working, and I stop feeling as good. So I must continue working to continue feeling good. And, hey, if there is an unbroken period of time of feeling good, I'll take it. I'll lay back and soak it in. I know because I do it frequently: every time I do good work on a project, the accomplishment stays with me for a little while and I'm just that much more content. But the important part is that I had to work for it, differentiating it from Nietzsche-like contentment.
Wow, I just wrote a ton. Hopefully it's all intelligible.
Not a formal philosophical concept but a sci-fi novel's explanation for the Fermi Paradox:
Dark Forest Theory
The Wikipedia page of the novel with the same name name explains it best:
The universe is full of life. Life in the universe functions on two axioms: 1. Life's goal is to survive, and 2. Resources are finite. Like hunters in a "dark forest", life can never be certain of alien life's true intentions. The extreme distance between stars creates an insurmountable "chain of suspicion" where any two civilizations cannot communicate well enough to relieve mistrust, making conflict inevitable. Therefore, it is in every civilization's best interest to preemptively strike and destroy any developing civilization before it can become a threat, but without revealing their own location, thus explaining the Fermi paradox.
Also, since we now recognize this paradox, doesn't the situation change somewhat? We now see that fighting will eventually lead to our death (there will always be a bigger fish than us1). So, we should choose the only other option and risk peace, hoping that the other civilization came to the same conclusion. We must choose between certain eventual death or possible (if unlikely) peace.
1 Life having a goal and just not being here, said goal being survival, living things being conscious of this goal and acting purposely for it.
2 Ressources are limited at all, limited in our life expectancy (we'll probably never have to worry about running out of sun) and in quantity compared to the number of individuals.
Then it may some assumptions on how living being works :
They live in competition with each other, which is wrong, studies of animal behavior shows that cooperation is everywhere in nature even between preys and predators.
That we would share the same ressources as "aliens" a thing we don't know.
That said aliens are similar lifeforms or even that they can be considered as "life".
That civilization can achieve space travel before imploding.
That said space travel is relevant in term of ressources consumption and time.
That cooperation isn't possible.
That agressive behaviors were develloped in "aliens" ecosystem.
.....
A shitload of things we don't know.
jmfmb ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 14:03:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no complete definition for all sorts of abstract concepts. The most interesting to me being "intelligence." But it also applies to humor, love, and quality. For that last one, read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
martixy ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:29:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This actually ties into an interesting concept I think Nietzsche brought up which asserts ideas can never have clear and distinct definitions just because the multiplicity of itโs possible uses and interpretations over time, THEREFORE the best way to understand these ideas is actually to create a sort of genealogy for their different interpretations. Hereโs an example of that being applied to the concept of liberty.
That's also because we experience so many new things when we're young. Memories feel longer and more vivid when they're about new and interesting experiences. As we get older, there's less new stuff for us to experience, especially as we set into a typical "adult routine." That's why time seems to go faster as we age.
Vsauce had a pretty neat way of understanding this phenomenon.
Firstly, let's recognize that humans don't have perfect memories and we have to reach a certain age before we can actually retain memories, but let's just agree that convolutes the thought experiment and ignore that.
Now, think about how long one year seems to you. Say you're one year old exactly. That's 100% percent of your life and experiences. Add just one more year, and you're two years old now. One year is now only 50% of your life and experiences. By the time you reach 100 years old, one year is only 1% of your entire life and experiences, which can help explain why time seems to go faster the longer we live.
I probably did a poor job conveying this, so I'll see if I can't find the video in which he talks about it.
Also when you're younger, every experience you have is new and exciting. Eating peas? This is your first time ever eating peas in your whole life, it's important to remember so you know what peas are and stuff like that.
But by the time you're old, you've eaten peas hundreds of times, you no longer need to remember it every time you eat peas. In fact, there's tons of mundane things you do everyday that you can just tune out.
And as you get older, a larger portion of your experiences are no longer important to remember. So like 75% of your life you just delete as soon as it happens, which can also make life seem faster.
xios ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:51:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is because of the relative perception of time.
When you are ten years old, ten years was your entire life.
When you're twenty, it was half your life.
At thirty, it's one third and so on. The passage of time feels faster because it means less to us as we age.
I was thinking the other day, what if that feeling is relative not to us but to the universe, what if time was for our parents overall was slower than our overall experience. What if in the year 4000 everything is doubley as fast as now. Although why would we identify childhood as feeling slower than adulthood? Maybe they exist one within the other, both being true. Food for thought
What if your mind works like a computer chip, and you have a certain number of "cycles" each day. What if as you get older, your brain works less fast, and you have less processing cycles per day? The day would most definitely seem faster moving to you when you're older...
hilal5ix ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 15:11:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does this count?
Be advised the following isn't my own content.
"The Egg
By: Andy Weir
You were on your way home when you died.
It was a car accident. Nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you, but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.
And thatโs when you met me.
โWhatโฆ what happened?โ You asked. โWhere am I?โ
โYou died,โ I said, matter-of-factly. No point in mincing words.
โThere was aโฆ a truck and it was skiddingโฆโ
โYup,โ I said.
โIโฆ I died?โ
โYup. But donโt feel bad about it. Everyone dies,โ I said.
You looked around. There was nothingness. Just you and me. โWhat is this place?โ You asked. โIs this the afterlife?โ
โMore or less,โ I said.
โAre you god?โ You asked.
โYup,โ I replied. โIโm God.โ
โMy kidsโฆ my wife,โ you said.
โWhat about them?โ
โWill they be all right?โ
โThatโs what I like to see,โ I said. โYou just died and your main concern is for your family. Thatโs good stuff right there.โ
You looked at me with fascination. To you, I didnโt look like God. I just looked like some man. Or possibly a woman. Some vague authority figure, maybe. More of a grammar school teacher than the almighty.
โDonโt worry,โ I said. โTheyโll be fine. Your kids will remember you as perfect in every way. They didnโt have time to grow contempt for you. Your wife will cry on the outside, but will be secretly relieved. To be fair, your marriage was falling apart. If itโs any consolation, sheโll feel very guilty for feeling relieved.โ
โOh,โ you said. โSo what happens now? Do I go to heaven or hell or something?โ
โNeither,โ I said. โYouโll be reincarnated.โ
โAh,โ you said. โSo the Hindus were right,โ
โAll religions are right in their own way,โ I said. โWalk with me.โ
You followed along as we strode through the void. โWhere are we going?โ
โNowhere in particular,โ I said. โItโs just nice to walk while we talk.โ
โSo whatโs the point, then?โ You asked. โWhen I get reborn, Iโll just be a blank slate, right? A baby. So all my experiences and everything I did in this life wonโt matter.โ
โNot so!โ I said. โYou have within you all the knowledge and experiences of all your past lives. You just donโt remember them right now.โ
I stopped walking and took you by the shoulders. โYour soul is more magnificent, beautiful, and gigantic than you can possibly imagine. A human mind can only contain a tiny fraction of what you are. Itโs like sticking your finger in a glass of water to see if itโs hot or cold. You put a tiny part of yourself into the vessel, and when you bring it back out, youโve gained all the experiences it had.
โYouโve been in a human for the last 48 years, so you havenโt stretched out yet and felt the rest of your immense consciousness. If we hung out here for long enough, youโd start remembering everything. But thereโs no point to doing that between each life.โ
โHow many times have I been reincarnated, then?โ
โOh lots. Lots and lots. An in to lots of different lives.โ I said. โThis time around, youโll be a Chinese peasant girl in 540 AD.โ
โWait, what?โ You stammered. โYouโre sending me back in time?โ
โWell, I guess technically. Time, as you know it, only exists in your universe. Things are different where I come from.โ
โWhere you come from?โ You said.
โOh sure,โ I explained โI come from somewhere. Somewhere else. And there are others like me. I know youโll want to know what itโs like there, but honestly you wouldnโt understand.โ
โOh,โ you said, a little let down. โBut wait. If I get reincarnated to other places in time, I could have interacted with myself at some point.โ
โSure. Happens all the time. And with both lives only aware of their own lifespan you donโt even know itโs happening.โ
โSo whatโs the point of it all?โ
โSeriously?โ I asked. โSeriously? Youโre asking me for the meaning of life? Isnโt that a little stereotypical?โ
โWell itโs a reasonable question,โ you persisted.
I looked you in the eye. โThe meaning of life, the reason I made this whole universe, is for you to mature.โ
โYou mean mankind? You want us to mature?โ
โNo, just you. I made this whole universe for you. With each new life you grow and mature and become a larger and greater intellect.โ
โJust me? What about everyone else?โ
โThere is no one else,โ I said. โIn this universe, thereโs just you and me.โ
You stared blankly at me. โBut all the people on earthโฆโ
โAll you. Different incarnations of you.โ
โWait. Iโm everyone!?โ
โNow youโre getting it,โ I said, with a congratulatory slap on the back.
โIโm every human being who ever lived?โ
โOr who will ever live, yes.โ
โIโm Abraham Lincoln?โ
โAnd youโre John Wilkes Booth, too,โ I added.
โIโm Hitler?โ You said, appalled.
โAnd youโre the millions he killed.โ
โIโm Jesus?โ
โAnd youโre everyone who followed him.โ
You fell silent.
โEvery time you victimized someone,โ I said, โyou were victimizing yourself. Every act of kindness youโve done, youโve done to yourself. Every happy and sad moment ever experienced by any human was, or will be, experienced by you.โ
You thought for a long time.
โWhy?โ You asked me. โWhy do all this?โ
โBecause someday, you will become like me. Because thatโs what you are. Youโre one of my kind. Youโre my child.โ
โWhoa,โ you said, incredulous. โYou mean Iโm a god?โ
โNo. Not yet. Youโre a fetus. Youโre still growing. Once youโve lived every human life throughout all time, you will have grown enough to be born.โ
โSo the whole universe,โ you said, โitโs justโฆโ
โAn egg.โ I answered. โNow itโs time for you to move on to your next life.โ
in my american philosophy class, Prof. R. Findler, Slippery Rock University, Spring 2002- as an aside while discussing "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God":
"Omnipotence- what does that mean? Doesn't it mean perfection? Isn't god always being touted as perfection? But in the Old Testament, god was angry and vengeful. That doesn't sound perfect to me. And there's a commandment against idolatry- because he's a jealous god. What does a perfect being have to be jealous of?"
i know it's not exactly what OP is asking for, but it was the first time my mind=blown. at that point i ceased being a christian and entered into my agnostic phase. i ended up dropping that class because my whole perception of life and reality was in this cascade-effect sequence of change and i couldn't handle any more philosophy on top of it.
one of the best professors i ever had (in the previous semester i had the same Prof for Ethics. it was an amazing class.)
The thing is that we really have no concept of what goes on in the mind of a God. Morally, there's not necessarily a universal right or wrong (the jury's still out on that, though), so maybe God was just acting amorally, and was simply enforcing and restricting his creations, out of purpose rather than hate or jealousy.
That is to say if the god we talk about and those who worship isn't actually the devil instead.
like kind of getting back at the real "god" by making it's own creation worship/love/kill for it the devil who was banished by "god"
because afterall why would god tell and teach it's own creation about itself?
For me it seems only the devil would benefit from this seeing as so many people have died because of the knowledge and word of "god"
This can also go on to explain why so many different religions exist.
If the devil (aka god) spreads and teaches multiple "gods" it causes chaos which in turn means conflict and death. Just look at Islam and it's extreme teaching that there is "only one god".
teaching your creation about yourself seems shady as hell to me as it leaves the lot of them in turn to interpret your words in a multitude of ways unique to each individual which would only cause conflicts of opinion.
The definition of perfection cannot originate from a flawed individual.
This is my understanding: Man is imperfect he/she cannot propose what God does or is for the simple fact that they don't know everything and within that very void of knowledge could possibly contain explanation
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:47:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So there are cases where genocide, and rape of innocents are perfectly acceptable or even that not comminuting genocide is immoral. That's a slippery slope you're on. ..
Your experience is a great testament to idea that if we all just sat and thought a bit more critically about the World around us, itโd be a very different place.
This is why I dislike the idea of religion and โGodโ. It encourages us as human beings to ignore and close off the most powerful thing we know in the Universe; our brains.
Then why does he specifically say in the commandments that โYou shalt have no other Gods Before meโ
That sounds like he was saying โyeah there are others out there. But let me catch you with one of those hoes. Just let me.โ God, in my mind, does an angry Latina voice really well.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:49:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That is not about other actual gods, but rather an advice about avoiding addictions. Something along the lines of "Thous shalt not have more important things in your life than God".
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:44:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Except specific other gods are named in the Bible.
Omnipotence means to be all-powerful, not to be perfect. But yes, an omnipotent God could just like, modify human nature to make believing in any other gods impossible. Or any other number of things to avoid all the "problems" humanity supposedly has. Most religious narratives about an all-powerful god are full of holes.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:50:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So itโs not the most mind blowing Iโm sure but โthe right to be forgottenโ. Basically when we pass away we have the right to not live forever through digital means, like social media or to perpetually turn up in search engines. A lot of people are against the right to be forgotten because they feel it could lead to a revisionist history of sorts.
I personally just feel itโs such a unique concept that is so specific to our times.
The way I see it, people have a right to be forgotten, but it doesn't trump (nor is it trumped by) others' right to remember. If you've impacted someone, you can't undo that. You're responsible for yourself, if that makes sense.
AltNixon ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 20:50:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's called the "Prime Mover" of the universe. Basically, where did the universe come from?
Ok, so you have all this stuff in the universe. Where did it all come from?
The big bang! Ok, so what caused the big bang?
God? Ok, where did God come from?
Migrated from a different universe to start this one? Popped into existence? Ok, popped into existence where? And what prompted this pop?
Basically no matter what path you take backwards, you can never arrive at a beginning unless you make assumptions or say "just because".
The universe being by definition all things that exist, god can't be outside the universe, if god exist he is in the universe, if he exist before everything else he is at some point the universe itself and still may have a starting point.
The Universe is contained within some other system. Ostensibly, since that system is without the Universe, it is not subject to the Universe's laws. Thus, perhaps it is not subject to causality, allowing it to spontaneously generate the Universe.
There is actually a theory that involves that. I am a bit foggy since it wasn't my area of research, but I think it involved pocket universes, wherein a "universe" was created in a larger structure whenever a bubble managed to form and hold its structure, and it allows for multiple universes within this structure. It was a talk given at my university, so I am not super sure of all the details.
You may have caused someone to stay up a few seconds later and therefore wakeup a few seconds later. If I get hit by a car on my morning commute I'm blaming you.
Update: didn't get hit by a car. Thank you for saving my life
Seriously, every time you post/edit something new here, you are spending precious time that is constantly changing the variables of what will happen in your life. Do you want to give me a heart attack?
Time is relative and we only experience it in one way as humans.
If you were to die and be recessitated a million years from now from your preserved brain, it would feel like blinking and finding yourself a million years in the future.
If you arrange atoms in a very specific way, you can create an object that is capable of experiencing pain. We know this, becausr your brain is such an object.
[deleted] ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 21:16:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It contains the same atoms, but they're no longer arranged in the same way (considering arrangement not just in space but also in timeโlife is necessarily a process, not a static object).
Actually, I could slice into your brain and you wouldnโt feel a thing. The brain itself never evolved to feel pain. I guess because at the point of being exposed and in danger of damage to it...well, youโd be dead.
The thing is, the brain itself can't actually experience pain. It's just being told that it is feeling pain by shit tons of connections in the nervous system. I get your point however. (Hope I'm not wrong, then I would really look like an asshole)
Species evolve to handle their environments. When you look at newborns, they have no innate knowledge on how to act, but they all more or less act the same. They do so out of survival, to be cute and to act in a predetermined way that all newborns need to act.
Babies who are not interacted with, die. Even if you feed them, cloth them, protect them from elements, an untouched baby dies as a much higher rate than one who is touched.
The environment for people, is other people. We are conditioned to think in groups, to seek approval, to interact with others in a socially acceptable way.
If you put someone in solitary confinement, away from other people, they will die or go crazy.
How far can you move it? How far from other people can you push it? What if our social circle is not our immediate surroundings, as it was for millions of years, but worldwide? What if instead of our family and local community, we seek the approval of weird internet strangers instead?
Can you have people withdraw via the internet from others, or would we all eventually turn into Hikkikomori, internet based hermits? Would we still even be human?
There's a hypothesis about the universe in which we live that our universe is not only one of many, but that all the universes exist like bubbles atop a pot of boiling water. Just coming into existence, expanding, and eventually simply popping out of existence.
In this hypothesis, all of existence will one day just cease to exist because our universal bubble will burst. The entirety of the universe will cease to be in a millisecond, with no warning whatsoever, and there's nothing any of us could do about it. We will all just cease to be.
efie ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:21:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This hypothesis has no grounds in modern cosmology. Nothing will just cease to be. Depending on the amount of energy supplied to the universe when it started expanding, the universe will either a) keep expanding until everything gets too far away from each other, b) reach a peak expansion point and start collapsing back in on itself, or c) expansion will stagnate.
Something that always messed with me is the paradox of theseus's ship. Basically theseus had a ship and one data part of it broke so he replaced it. You wouldn't consider that ship to be any different really, it's the same ship. So then later another part breaks and he replaces it. He keeps replacing prices of it until no part of it is the original. Would it be the same ship or would it be different. At each replacement the ship stays the same so it would never change each time it would just be replacing one part. You can go a step further and have theseus use the original prices to build a second ship. Which one is the original?
You could claim that at 50% it switches and that is pretty reasonable. But you can apply this to yourself and say that as your cells die and replace each other it is like you are replacing parts of the ship but you wouldn't think that you were becoming a different person, you 10 years ago is still the same.
I listened to a lecture by a Buddhist monk who gave a similar analogy to explain how we are always changing, and that the concept of identity and being a fixed object (the self) in the world is ignorant even in a scientific sense: he then gave the example you gave of our cells all dying and regenerating new ones over time
I see two "solutions". It's never the same ship, or it's the same ship for as long as humans decide that it is.
joe1up ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:47:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are 7.4 billion people on this planet. Each with thier own hopes, dreams, failures, relationships, goals, and I don't even know 0.01 percent of them.
that's called sonder. The realization that anybody you've seen walking down the street is either living their own life just as complex as yours or is dead. Or perhaps you're going on a simple Sunday drive. One of the cars next to you could be on its way to assassinate the president and you'd be completely oblivious.
Keinichn ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 20:33:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he's not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he's malevolent.
Is he able and willing? Then why does evil exist?
Is he neither able, nor willing? Then why call him God?
-Epicurus
The existence an omnipotent, benevolent God is impossible, based on the world today.
AirHeat ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 03:28:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It reminds me of this excerpt from Angels & Demons by Dan Brown:
Lieutenant Chatrand: I donโt understand this omnipotent-benevolent thing.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: You are confused because the Bible describes God as an omnipotent and benevolent deity.
Lieutenant Chatrand: Exactly.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Omnipotent-benevolent simply means that God is all-powerful and well-meaning.
Lieutenant Chatrand: I understand the concept. Itโs justโฆ there seems to be a contradiction.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Yes. The contradiction is pain. Manโs starvation, war, sicknessโฆ
Lieutenant Chatrand: Exactly! Terrible things happen in this world. Human tragedy seems like proof that God could not possibly be both all-powerful and well-meaning. If He loves us and has the power to change our situation, He would prevent our pain, wouldnโt he?
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Would He?
Lieutenant Chatrand: Wellโฆ if God Loves us, and He can protect us, He would have to. It seems He is either omnipotent and uncaring, or benevolent and powerless to help.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Do you have children?
Lieutenant Chatrand: No, signore.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Imagine you had an eight-year-old sonโฆ would you love him?
Lieutenant Chatrand: Of course.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Would you let him skateboard?
Lieutenant Chatrand: Yeah, I guess. Sure Iโd let him skateboard, but Iโd tell him to be careful.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: So as this childโs father, you would give him some basic, good advice and then let him go off and make his own mistakes?
Lieutenant Chatrand: I wouldnโt run behind him and mollycoddle him if thatโs what you mean.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: But what if he fell and skinned his knee?
Lieutenant Chatrand: He would learn to be more careful.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: So although you have the power to interfere and prevent your childโs pain, you would choose to show you love by letting him learn his own lessons?
Lieutenant Chatrand: Of course. Pain is part of growing up. Itโs how we learn.
The thing about this is that God can prevent all the evil in the world. But by doing this he has to take away the free will of all those who donโt follow his path. The God of Christianity created humans because He is a relational being. If He created us to love Him, and then forced us to love Him, itโs not really love. The only way we could actually love Him, is if we chose it, which means some can choose to not love Him, and choose to do whatever they want. This is what lead to sin which is just going against Godโs perfect nature, or shalom, which creates evil in the world.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:46:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, so what about when a tiger eats somebody, or a tsunami wipes out a village, or an asteroid devestates a province, or a disease kills millions. Did God give all of these things free will too?
DeepGiro ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 19:53:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time doesn't exist, there is only a perpetual 'now'.
Science has never been able to prove the existence of time.
Time, as we know, it is merely invention created to allow us to make sense of the clockwork nature of the universe.
The notion that your world is based from the language you speak.
Business, religions, science all have their own nomenclature. The more you know the better adept you are at communicating and progressing into those cultures/discourse. The less you know, the more limited you are.
This holds true for multi-lingual people too. People who can speak English, Spanish, and Japanese (for example) are able to find out more about the world because they can communicate with through different cultures.
โThe limits of my language means the limits of my world.โ - Wittgenstein
How the actual fuck did we figure this ou- oh you're talking about humans. Figured that out mid-reply.
thank.
Mar_ce ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:59:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The question on our goal here.
I mean everyone crosses life accepting the rules given (get a job, wife, have children, raise them, die) but is there some sense in that ?
What the fuck are we doing here and why ?
If someone have the answer, feel free to share
I believe we don't actually have a goal other than the one we create. There's no greater purpose, just a whole lot of possibilities. I take comfort in it, because it means that I can't fail anyone but myself ultimately.
Mar_ce ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:35:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sadly you must be true, we are a kind of atom arrangement that can replicate itself and randomly generated by the universe.
We are a transient step of the matter, quick emergent consciousness of the universe itself doomed to disappear.
Slightly unrelated but I'm 24, and I've spent all of my life trying to achieve the life I've been told I should pursue. Now I realise that a lot of it is shitty advice based on culture at the time and that many of those people are probably as miserable as I've been, chasing the carrot of a "good life".
It doesn't make sense for our species to evolve in a way that everyone wants the same thing. The best long term solution is to have different individuals who can cover each other, but we've allowed the majority to define what success is and I think it's making a lot of people miserable.
Since the big bang, matter has grown in complexity, until it could form stars. These stars burned, exploded and died to form more stars, and even more complex elements, like iron & calcium.
Eventually things got complex enough to form planets, and microbes, and life. Eventually that life grew complex enough to develop culture, society, and writing.
Eventually those cultures and writings got so complex, they gave rise to science, consciousness, intelligence, which can now look at the stars they came from, and label them.
We are a way for the universe to understand itself.
Foxssg ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:42:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Underrated post. The more I think on this the more I like it.
Majinko ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:33:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That life is ultimately pointless and because of our intelligence, we actually have the worst end of the stick because we can know such great joy and pain outside of instincts.
Nah his question just isnt good. You cant be "a bit immortal" or in his case 100% immortal. You either are or arent immortal.
But then also you need a clear definition of word immortal. Immortal can either mean that your existence in some way cant be stopped, or that you cant die (in the way of your heart stopping, or brain, or whatever).
That mad people don't know they're mad, in other words you may not be reading this, you might be having a psychotic episode in a 19th century asylum, dribbling and chained to a wall. And there would be no way to know.
Acknowledging this possibility doesnโt make life any less joyful. Quite the opposite, really.
Dxrkoka ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 17:21:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time. How long is forever..? Time is a measurement created by people but what really is โtimeโ? Is there an end of time? I donโt know, it just messes with me.
efie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:29:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time is relative based on your perspective, but it wasn't invented by people.
Dxrkoka ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:30:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The measurement of time was, which is what I was referring to.
There is no real way to measure whether people are happier now than they were 500, 1000, 10,000 etc years ago. We have no way to sort of prove that we have actually made the world a better place for us.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:13:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And that doesnt make it automatically right. Even in mathematics where you need to work your ass off to prove something and only then be able to say it, theories are constantly proven false. And here you are talking about something that he just simply said.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:04:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That depends entirely on what you mean by "the idea of a god". If you mean "some vague ill-defined thing with no properties", then sure. For any specific definition of "god", that isn't true at all.
What do you mean by the idea of God being meaningless? I do agree that ascribing properties to God is misguided - and I think via negativa or negative theology is the most honest way to try and โdescribeโ God
Basically what a God is, is not agreed upon. The general concept of a God then is just meaningless until you start to explain what you mean by God. So up until then, you can't prove or disprove it because nothing is being claimed.
I dont agree that ascribing properties to God is misguided.
Maybe misguided is the wrong word, but I think a problem arises when we try and use words based on our human understanding to try and describe God, because thereโs an aspect of God that is totally not-human.
Edit: can anyone clue me in as to why my comments have both been downvoted?
Exactly, it's essentially claiming there might be this thing that might have some stuff, but we don't what that traits it might have.
Something like that is impossible to argue against because it isn't a claim, it's just a view that there might be something that somebody night one day describe as a god.
try and use words based on our human understanding to try and describe God, because thereโs an aspect of God that is totally not-human
I might not be answering this correctly, but most of human understanding of certain properties we would affix to god is based off of fundamental reason and logic, or science. Fundamentals like how psychics and math are embedded into the universe.
Same could be said about a teapot revolving around Jupiter, or the invisible dragon in my garage. Unverifiable things are worthless until evidence proves otherwise. That which is presented without evidence, can be discarded without evidence.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 07:00:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"God did it" doesn't answer anything, you just replaced "where do we come from" with "where does God come from".
As for your " various proofs for the existance of God as the prime mover, and as the "greatest thing" etc.", you do realize they're all start from the assumption that god exist to prove him, right?
Circular reasoning isn't reasonable at all.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 12:50:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I addressed your argument, you reacted with a mixture of insults and incoherent rambling that made it clear that you neither posses the knowledge necessary to discuss this topic, nor the will to have a reasonable conversation about it.
Not further engaging people like you is the only remaining course of action.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:29:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"He exposed my stupidity and general lack of knowledge, but if I'll just repeat pathetic over and over like a kindergartener people will still think I'm smart"
Are you for real kid? :D
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:27:58 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Imagine you found an ancient tablet written in the first ever script, which basically pitches the idea of God to the tribe leader and the guy who wrote it takes credit for the idea. Wouldn't that disprove the idea of God as it is, by marking it solidly as a fabrication?
nothing can disprove an idea. thats the very point of an idea, is that it's always true. when we find that an idea isn't true, we discard it, adjust it, or perform cognitive dissonance until we can do one of the first two.
But most religions make definite claims about their god that can pretty easily disproven.
It's the parts that are "metaphors" nowadays.
9bananas ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 23:34:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the biblical god? easy. Marcus Aurelius did it literally ages ago:
of there is a god, why is there evil in the world?
if there was a god, and he's benevolent, there would be no evil.
if there is no god, then there's no point in worship.
if there is a god and he allows evil, worship is also pointless, since he won't save you from evil.
alternatively: if god is omnipotent, can he create an object he can't destroy?
if he can't, he's not omnipotent. if he can, he isn't either.
there's literally tons of examples explaining in detail why the very idea of god doesn't make sense, therefore removing the need for prove, for or against the existence of god.
the concept of god(s) is pretty much "This statement is false.": in the end all you know, is that it's a pointless sentence without any useful information, because it only references itself....
Nope - this is "disproof" is pretty well disproved. (It's also misattributed here--it was actually Lucretius who made this argument--Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic and like most Stoics believed in God). It's a well-known issue, known as the "logical problem of evil" and is considered to have been pretty conclusively laid to rest by thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga (although much older thinkers such as Augustine and Irenaeus had made pretty good arguments before). Basically, the problem with the argument is that it is entirely possible that an omnibenevolent God could allow partial evil in order to leave room for some types of goodness which need said evil to exist. For example, there could not be the true good of bravery without at least the fear of danger--and even the fear of danger is in and of itself an evil, even if the feared danger never materializes.
"Not bound by logic" just means it is essentially non-being--nothing but a chimera of human language; as impossible as a square circle. By "all powerful" most theists mean not that God is capable of doing absurd and self-contradictory things, since these plainly aren't things--but that God is capable of doing and making all things that are real. Indeed, most theists are keen to say that God cannot do several things such as lie, cease to exist, or anything by nature self contradictory. By "all-powerful" is meant the limitless power to do all that is consistent with God's nature, not to do any absurd thing humans dream up.
Like, 100% completely limitless, not bound by any logic
But then, if a God does exist and they created this universe (I'm assuming that's part of what /u/amishcatholic was arguing? Maybe not), wouldn't they have to stay in the bounds of the universe they created? Theoretically speaking they don't have to, but it seems like making something based in rules and then subsequently subverting these rules is a bit silly.
Ah - seems I need some humility. I believe I also misattributed the idea in the original post--it's possibly Epicurus himself (the founder of the school to which Lucretius belonged) or another unknown Epicurean.
I've been a practicing catholic for 56 years, my whole life has revolved around praising god. You've made me realize I was wrong. I don't know what to do. I think I have to kill myself.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:57:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That if the universe we live in was created by a big bang, we might not be living in the 1st ever universe. Also there could be multiple universes in existence right now. And that just blows my mind how big everything is
That we think we are our first name and surname, but infact it is just a label that two other individuals gave you. You are actually a life form known as a mammal on a planet, orbiting a star in a vast space time continuum. Everything is just labels and classifications.
I think thats what everyone knows (or would know, if they paid any attention to it) but its so minor that it doesnt matter at all. Like saying I am Subzero actually means My name is Subzero.
Kevl17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:29:52 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
mammal / planet / star / space time continuum
labels and classifications
When I was smaller I stared at a tree for a long time and then said aloud 'I wonder what that tree is called' and then tried to explain what I was thinking to the person who heard me. This is sorta what I was thinking.
The concept of earth being a side project for God. If he has all the power that the bible and christianity says he has, he could have easily accepted his mistakes in creation on this planet and went to another planet to give it another go.
On that planet maybe he would reveal himself to his creation early on to make sure that there is no question regarding his existence. I assume he would make those creatures perfect in every way and immune to sin and death. There would be no disobeying God or any contempt for him and the things he does or doesn't do. It would be an infinitely better situation for him. So much so that he could easily replicate these perfect creatures on many other planets and abandon his previous faulty creations to fend for themselves. Idk just a thought.
If God has all the powers the bible says, then he is incapable of making mistakes and, as such, would have gotten everything right the first try. So, if such a God exists, everything is exactly as he wanted it.
He did get it right the first try. "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." But he gave us free will, and we screwed it all up.
Counterpoint, imagine a world where everyone believes that there is someone who KNOWS everything that is going on at all times, and will punish ill behavior. A world where everyone was designed perfectly, and God decided to watch it. Think about it this way, how boring would that be?
Didnt really read the other ones, so if someone else said that sorry. Everything in excess is poison, including chaos, order, and in my opinion, boredom.
Cloatey ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:19:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So why doesn't he show up here if that were the case?
Why would he? I assume the human race is a disposable project to him. He kinda punished our entire race and then later on flooded the entire race. I can't imagine us being that important if he created something better and was THAT pissed off at us.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:31:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Perhaps you need to read more of the Bible, because most of what you said God would do on another planet, the Bible says he did on this Earth and humans still rebelled against him.
Number one. I'm a Former Christian well versed in the bible who is now an Atheist. I reject the claims in the bible on the grounds that it contradicts science, history and our modern understanding of the world around us.
Second. Adam and Eve rebelled. I did not. Humanity did not. and God made the entire human race suffer for hundreds of thousands years for the mistake of two individuals who were alive for less than a year.
Third. God literally created his own problems. He has the power and the know it all to make things exactly how he wants them. Its like expecting my 3 year old child to make the right decision the first time and then punishing us for eternity for it. That's cruel and not what a "Father" does.
Lol ok mate. I'm not debating with you, just pointing out your original statement was very badly related to what's actually told in the Bible. No need to get all defensive about it. So much contempt, geez. Chill.
Lol no contempt I promise. "Maybe you should read more bible" is the battle cry of every Christian ready for a reddit religious debate. Sorry if I came across as defensive.
We are made up of the same elements that make up literally everything in the universe. So we're all essentially the same thing. We ARE the universe. Specifically, because of our consciousness, we are the universe's way of experiencing itself.
Why exactly? If we define something then it exists. And we defined different "things" as different sets of properties.
nagol93 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 17:25:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How much is a pile of sand?
Is 10,000 grains of sand a pile? Most people will say "yes". What if you take one grain away? Still a pile, right? Take another away, then another, and so on. At what point is it no longer a pile? Is 10 grains a pile? Is 2? Where is the line drawn?
[deleted] ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 19:22:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If we define a pile to be a collection of things, the answer is two.
a pile is either 4 or 5 pieces. that's when you can form a triangular or quad pyramid, making two layers.
CivilCJ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:27:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My coworker and I discussed this on a slow night. We came to the conclusion that itโs based on its intended orientation. A pile is an unorganized (or mostly unorganized) grouping of objects that has at least one portion (in this case a grain) resting on top of another. Itโs not a stack, because stacks are organized, itโs not just sand, because thatโs just grains in 2 dimensions. There is a natural element of entropy in a pile.
I think of a pile as a collection of objects that has more objects on top of it. show me stacked boxes? pile of boxes. show me a single layer of boxes? nice collection. clean this shit up.
nagol93 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:22:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, would you consider 2 grains of sand balanced to top of each other a pile?
Then all you can do is show her as much as you can. And once you have, show her even more. You can only ever show her even more love than you have before :)
The holographic principle. In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as two-dimensional information on the cosmological horizon, the event horizon from which information may still be gathered and not lost due to the natural limitations of spacetime supporting a black hole, an observer and a given setting of these specific elements, such that the three dimensions we observe are an effective description only at macroscopic scales and at low energies.
I've always found the comparison to a piano useful here. We experience life in the "middle C octave", with micro and macro events occurring at higher and lower frequencies that we can relate to, understand, and even appreciate.
Then we enter frequencies that are, in a sense, identical in every way to our own, but are shifted as to be imperceptible or otherwise unappreciated due to our configuration for perception.
It's interesting to see that this has been around since the 70's.
The idea that time could stop and start constantly. From our perspective completely at the mercy of the passage of time we would never know if time actually stopped and started again. Time could stop and stay stopped for years (I don't have the vocabulary to explain the length at which time stops without comparing it to a measurement of time) and start right back up again and we would never notice as no time passed for us!
The fact that the only thing we know for sure is we exist in some way shape or form. Everything else is subjective (don't remember exact quote and may have misused a few words, don't eat me alive reddit)
dmtvile ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:16:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For me it's always been the concept of solipsism--the philosophy that you are the only person who actually exists because you're the only person that you can prove exists.
It's a ridiculous concept to try to prove to someone else because if you actually believe it's true then why bother explaining it if the person you're talking to doesn't exist?
But on the other hand, how can you actually prove it's not the case?
Not sure if it's been said...
But everyone is their own personal universe with their mind being the god that runs it all. Sometimes we run into other walking, talking universes with their own gods with their own agendas.
And so on...
But we dont run it all. What about the choices that someone else makes us to make (another person or institution or system or whatever). Also, what about the stuff that is happening inside our bodies, you cant control majority of it (unless you kill yourself which isnt really control, its just a one time off button).
The concept of is-ought distinction from David Hume which basically states that just because something is does not mean that we ought to behave in a certain way. Meaning that we shouldnt assume that something ought to be followed or implemented just because something is a certain way. It would be a grave error to do so and people do it everyday in conversation and the self reflection.
This is actually scottist philosopher, David Hume's concept. An example might be something like this, the cost of a sex transition is a tremendous amount, therefore transgendered people ought not be able to enlist in the military. because the latter part is a sheer opinion it cannot be derived by the first statement. So from this example you can see how many vital errors we make on a daily basis.
Edit: this is based mostly on moral and ethical philosophy utilizing logical thought as a key factor.
No, facts are facts.... but we would be wrong if we were to assume that we ought to act a certain way based on that fact. This could also be unharmful like (i got this example from steven west's philosophize this podcast) if someone believes that people who are doing bad things are doing it because they were never hugged as a child, and so he says that everybody ought to be going around hugging people and spreading as much love as possible just like him. BUT this is a big mistake in logic. As that was a huge assumption stating that people have to act a certain way with no backed up proves logically. So you can see how bad this can be if someone like hitler believed that to rebuild germany, jews ought to be prisoned. Hope I am making sense.
About facts. Facts are what we believe to be facts. We prove stuff, it has to be always true or something like that and we call it a fact. But then again how many times have people been wrong and corrected themselves later. And i dont mean ordinary people, i mean scientists that have "proven" their facts or at least they though so. So not all facts are actually facts, who knows what might be discovered in future that might prove some of them wrong.
No... no ... think of it as this: because something is a certain way, (basing off of that) you ought to act or be a certain way. That is an illogical statement and it would be wrong of anyone to assume that.
What's wrong with saying something like "This is dangerous, we should be careful"?
I mean it's skipping over some steps like why being careful is important, and what makes the activity dangerous, but it serves its purpose as a reminder of caution and, once said, the missing information may become very apparent.
that we are the physical and energetic universe experiencing itself subjectively. That the unified consciousness of reality is split billions upon billions of times for each life form to experience a different facet of this itself. That we are all one. That we are one with everything. Always.
It's more of a mathematical problem but Absolute Determinism is pretty dark.
If you threw a handful of dice, what's the chance you'd be able to predict how they would all land? It seems entirely random, but what if you know exactly how hard they were thrown, how they interact with the air, how the shape of each die down to the atomic level changes how they roll? if you knew ALL of the variables, you'd predict it right every time.
Now apply that to the universe. If you know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING the moment of the big bang, you could predict where all of the start would end up, how long until they went supernova, how many planets each would have, what the conditions are like on each planet, when the first life would develop there, how it would interact on an atomic level, etc.
We're not made of anything special, that goes for our brains. Basically, your current thoughts could be predicted at the moment of the big bang.
You know the name of colour you can't actually describe what a colour looks like. And this is mostly prevalent when trying to explain what colour something is to a blind person with no concept of colour.
Every time I am reminded of the similarities between the biggest things in the universe and the smallest forms of matter I remember that we have no idea what scale we are in and our entire universe really could just be in a dew drop on the back of some alien turtle.
jaigon ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:30:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This Universe is within some larger system. That system is not necessarily subject to the same laws as the Universe. So, it may not be subject to causality. Thus, it could spontaneously generate the Universe.
jaigon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:01:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True, but then the same question could be asked about that larger system. Why does the larger universe have laws that generate other universes. At some point you have to take it as a brute fact without any reason- we have these laws and structure of a parent universe just because its that way. Unfoetunatly, this line of reasoning could cause a theologian to say "well you took the physical laws as a brute fact, so why is it less rational to take God as a brute fact. Afterall you are always asuming something, so why are some brute facts mor palatable than others?"
True, but then the same question could be asked about that larger system. Why does the larger universe have laws that generate other universes.
I disagree. Once the larger system is free from causality, we may accept all prerequisites for our universe as having happened without reason.
At some point you have to take it as a brute fact without any reason- we have these laws and structure of a parent universe just because its that way.
Agree, to a point. It is that way not "just because its that way" in the sense that it is static, permanent, unending, unquestionable, etc., but rather in the sense that it's a result of the larger system being free from causality and thus has no reason for being that way.
Unfoetunatly, this line of reasoning could cause a theologian to say "well you took the physical laws as a brute fact, so why is it less rational to take God as a brute fact. Afterall you are always asuming something, so why are some brute facts mor palatable than others?"
Disagree that I'm assuming anything. I'm not assuming anything about the larger system or the universe, merely giving a scenario which explains the creation of the universe with a terminating causal chain.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:04:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Our causality-less universe can do whatever it wants, since it's free from causality. Thus, it can produce a universe without causality.
It seems, to me at least, that something contained in a parent system would inherit the parent system's rules, but also may be subject to its own. That is, a child system is as restricted, or more, than the parent system. Note that a causality-less system producing a causal system is consistent with this.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:34:58 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see your point, I think. If I understand correctly, you've interpreted "lack of causality" to imply that nothing can happen, since nothing has a cause. I've interpreted it to mean that anything can happen, since nothing needs a cause.
If we follow my interpretation, then anything can happen, including creating a contained causal universe.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:25:05 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It depends on if by "can't interact" you mean "are disallowed from interacting" or "simply do not have the ability to interact". That is, is "not having causality" a restriction or an absence?
In the former case, I agree with you; the contained system shouldn't1 have causality, either.
But in the latter case, the contained system is being granted that missing ability, so it's fine.
1 Well, maybe. Note that computer simulations are contained systems which are free from restrictions, e.g. gravity, of the parent system.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:50:11 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would say they don't have the same effect for the reasons I stated before: that while restrictions are necessarily inherited by child systems, an absence may be filled in the child system.
And this is a good question, I opine that they are real systems. However, I never did define 'system', so your point is fair.
Yvl9921 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:03:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Semiotics. Basically, every symbol that exists is arbitrary - this includes words (aside from onomatopoeia). So "Cat" doesn't really mean cat, it means nothing, but we've been programmed, in this society, to associate these random lines and squiggles with the fluffy ball of love and murder.
Disagree, to an extent. Hieroglyphs are symbols which have innate meaning derived from a shared experience among people.
Now, if you're talking on a more 'transcendental' level, i.e. you mean that no symbols have any objective meaning1, then yeah, I agree.
1 This could be quantified like so: We consider a symbol to have an objective meaning if that meaning is innately understood by every possible observer2.
2 Ok, I'm going down the rabbit hole a bit, but: Can every observer (or any two observers, really) have the same understanding of the symbol (or anything)? I imagine that the way each observer thinks is slightly different from every other observer.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:00:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We do not know that. We don't really know anything more than that the universe was a lot smaller 14 billion years ago. Small enough our current knowledge of physics stops being helpful in figuring out what was going on.
I always think about it like fitting a ring on a finger. The point where it fits conveniently is our current reality. But it wonโt fit when you slide it up or down, at which point you have to resize the ring (Science) to fit the finger (reality). Our understanding at this point can only hypothesize the dimensions of the distal and proximal parts of the finger.
Indosay ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 17:20:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, there are a few concepts like this that most people just sort of have an incorrect understanding of. Not by any fault of their own, most likely, but just because of what we've all been taught. The Big Bang wasn't the beginning of the universe. It was the beginning of the sudden and rapid expansion of our universe from one point to more than one, an expansion that continues today. It's more correct to say it was the beginning of our universe as we know it today and for the last 13.8whatever billion years more or less. It's not that it popped into existence, just that whatever it was before suddenly started to grow very, very quickly. It wasn't like pulling a nonexistent rabbit out of a hat. The rabbit was there, it just suddenly started to grow a lot bigger.
Well, that's the big bang. What put into place the thing that gave way to the big bang? Eventually it goes back to nothing.
Indosay ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:07:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nobody knows what's "before" the Big Bang. And in some sense, it doesn't make sense to ask that question. Time is a product of the Big Bang, so technically, there wasn't a "before" as we understand it. Time began at the big bang. Does that mean there wasn't something before it? Not necessarily. It just wouldn't be the way that we currently understand time. Just like there wasn't spacial dimension (left/right, up/down, forward/backward) like we understand it today.
We don't really know what it goes back to. It could go back to nothing. It could keep going back infinitely. Maybe there was no beginning and it's infinite just as many astrophysicists believe space is infinite. Maybe it's in a closed loop meaning the universe has been stuck on the same loop forever. Nobody knows. That's the fun part haha. But we can't really definitively say it eventually goes back to nothing. We just don't know that yet.
Just because something is infinite does not mean it wasn't brought into being. There is a difference between bounded and unbounded infinities. Time, space, and the universe could be infinite, but at the same time there was a state before that.
Indosay ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:13:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're right! There absolutely could have been a "creation" moment. But there doesn't inherently have to be one. The universe could lack a "creation" for all we know. We just don't have any information before the Big Bang, so we just can't say. There's no reason we can't form beliefs about it, but there's just no information about it so we can't really say anything about it for certain.
Potentially stupid question: does that mean that all the electrons (or quarks or whatever the smallest unit of matter is) that currently exist and will ever exist were just crammed into an unimaginably dense space? Like if you were to look at the tiny universe immediately before the big bang under an incredibly powerful microscope that could see within atoms, what would you see in there?
Indosay ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:25:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To be honest, Iโm not really sure. A couple of thoughts, though, that may help. So you couldnโt really look โinsideโ the universe before the Big Bang (at least as far as we/I know). This is because โspaceโ didnโt exist yet. What I mean by that is spacial dimensions. So to look inside something, it has to take up space, like a box, that would have a forward/backward dimension, an up/down dimension, and a left/right dimension. Those didnโt exist before the Big Bang. The universe was a single point, a single dot. Not just a really tiny sphere, but literally a single point with zero dimensions. No up/down, no left/right, etc. So itโs not like you could stick a tiny tiny camera inside to peek around because there was no โaroundโ in which to peek as super weird and counterintuitive as that seems haha.
If I were to guess, I would say that those things didnt exist before the Big Bang, at least not in the same state that we know them now. But! Every electron, quark, etc that does exist has existed since the Big Bang. My guess is that they sort of came into existence during the Big Bang. And part of the reason I guess this is that we think there was actually a lot more matter at the Big Bang. There was also the same amount of anti-matter (which sounds weird and sci-fi-y but is really just a creepy name for regular matter thatโs sort of the opposite of regular matter). Iโm not really sure of the exact differences between matter and anti-matter, but the theory goes that, right after the Big Bang, there were equal parts matter and anti-matter. One propriety of matter and anti-matter is that when they come in contact, they destroy each other completely. So the theory goes that all matter should have been destroyed very quickly since there should have been an equal amount of matter and anti-matter. Thatโs one of the mysteries weโre still not sure about. Why is the universe made up almost entirely of matter? Why did matter win out and anti-matter lose? We donโt know. But I say all this to say that if all of the electrons (and anti-electrons) and quarks (and anti-quarks) existed before the Big Bang, stuffed into an infinitely small singularity, they probably would have destroyed each other completely. So my guess is that they all came into existence right at the Big Bang (or at the very least they took on their current existence as this universeโs form of matter whatever that means lol).
Hope that wasnโt too confusing! Iโm not at my Pc anymore so hard to type up good answers on a phone. I will check when I get home, though, what Google says because now Iโm curious what most scientists think haha. Whether they existed before the Big Bang or not. Ultimately, we have no way of knowing because we donโt actually know anything from โbeforeโ the Big Bang. There is no information and probably no way for us to ever get any information, so the answer may sort of always be โwho knows?โ.
It had to come from something though, and even if that something came from something, eventually far back enough it get's to nothing. No matter how many turtles you stack, they eventually are resting on the void.
efie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:23:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"smaller" doesn't really apply here. The more correct term would be "denser".
This is the thing that messes with my head the most. And who even knows? How can something come out of nothing? And if there was something before it, what was it? Is the whole universe just a big loop repeating all over again? Is it actually a simulation?
I can't fathom that it came from nothing. But the rabbit out of the hat comes from the hat...so a universal hat existed ? But who brought the hat. And who ever brought the hat... Who made them ?
Well, the main thing is that there is no such thing as "nothing", "nothing" is a human abstraction. Even empty space has a chaotic energy from which particles briefly emerge and annihilate themselves.
So it's more correct to say that the Universe or creation or whatever vacillates between order and chaos, not "something versus nothing".
My understanding is that the the big bang theory doesn't hold that the universe came from nothing, but that everything, all energy and matter, were confined in an infinitesimally small space, a singularity, that eventually burst outward and continues to spread outward to this day.
Either that or we are in a universe that has split off of another one, acting as a large cell, creating mitosis. That is how vibrations can carry outside of the observable universe if given enough time. Its outer boundaries are malleable, and are able to be expanded and, possibly, broken, like cellular life.
This is mostly unprovable because we will not live long enough to see it happen. Something will, though, and thatโs what keeps this vast emptiness filled.
Probably just our definition of what we know and lack of definitions of what we don't. "Nothing" may not be the right word. Whatever the explanation, it will be really fucking cool.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 16:15:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The multiverse theory suggests that there is a universe where you are naturally immortal, so, maybe this could be one of these universes, and one of the people reading this is THE ONE.
But if you never hear about any god too, both are bets on if I live my life like A I would get X, A being an ensemble of conditions and X a reward or punishment.
Every time i read a conversation about sceptaeism I get a little down. I just find comfort in knowing that I know nothing and Iโm on an endless journey through eternity so I might as well just enjoy the ride instead of analyzing it
Taking the classic view of heaven leads to an interesting idea. If free will is so good as to allow evil then is there free will in heaven? Can I commit sin in heaven? If not then it goes to show that free will isn't good enough to allow evil (provided we operate under the condition that heaven is better than our physical world, and if it isn't better then Christianity and other religions have a lot to consider)
This is in response to the common response of the problem of evil, shown here.
Q: if God is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving why is there evil?
A: because free will is such a good thing, the evil that comes with it is worth the overall net change in goodness.
NatH502 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:55:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The distinction between "primary" and "secondary" properties made hundreds of years ago by John Locke I think.
A basic version of this idea is that "primary" properties are properties that exist outside of perception and are very few: time, space/extension, mass, charge, etc.
"Secondary" properties are everything else we experience and are a product of primary properties swirling around in our brains.
Feels weird man.
One interesting theory is the "Zero-energy universe". wherein it is believed that the net total energy of the universe is zero because positive energy (in the form of matter) and negative energy (in the form of gravity) exactly balance each other.
This is what some scientists believe allowed the Big Bang to occur as simply a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum. Therefore, everything is nothing and nothing is everything! There really IS such a thing as a "free lunch"!!!
Also linguistically speaking, it is possible for a reader to talk with an author. In everyday conversation, there's a feedback between sender and receiver, that is, a real time message with a topic and a context implied. The concept I am trying to describe makes total contrast with this kind of conversation, as there's no dynamic in it. The way this works is that of sender-message and message-receiver. But the message with a topic and a context is still existent. In comparison again with normal conversation, I can just approach to you and say "hey how did things go yesterday?" and you wouldn't understand what I'm talking about because of the lack of context. In the same way, you can pick up a book and you would have to read it up until a certain point in which you'll have collected enough information to deduct what is happening. See? Message, topic, context.
Now that I have explained that, I can say that the way you can have a conversation with an author is reading their works, analysing how and what they write. For instance, are there insane amounts of detail? Maybe the writer had passion for them and they may be crucial for the right understanding of the message, like in George RR Martin's books, for example. You can travel back in time when reading the diary of Anne Frank. This one is easier, as it is a personal journal. The point is that whatever they author wrote, he/she gave a fuck about, and you can get to know them because their texts are part of them and their personality, thoughts, experiences, etc. You can choose whatever book that lies in your house and find out things about the person who wrote it just by reading it.
This idea of communicating with someone who may have been dead for decades before you were born through words on paper is simply amazing and I think it is beautiful.
Basically it is an analogical outtake on the bible and the whole "expelled from the garden of eden to wonder all eternety".
My philosophical mind blower is that the more you learn stuff, various stuff, all kinds of stuff, the farther you are from the tree of knowledge. Consider it this way - who hurts the most in an argument - the neverunderstanding fool or the one who have taken the due diligence to learn the side he is representing? The fool (example: flat earthers, political fanatics, you name it) wouldn't even be touched by the facts the erudite would eloquently share thus the ache inside the scholar in this case.
sori97 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:17:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are limited beings. Just as a dog cannot comprehend rocket science, we will neveer fully comprehend the universe. Animals that use echolocation for radiowaves have the sense or organ of perception to detect them. We never knew they existed till we measured them. Who else knows what exists ajd what doesnt. Our mind and sense perceive the universe and in a sense create our reality. What would reality be if we had other senses? This makes reality subjective. And the paradox is, even all of this could be wrong as its coming from me a limited being. Ajd that also is coming from me. Everything is negated the moment its stated. Paradoxes raised to the paradoxes. A system cannot prove anything within itself -Godels theorem of incompleteness.
I think regular people still grapple with Augustineโs free will and omnipotence of god issue
If god knows everything, can do anything, and is just, why do bad things happen to good people and vice versa?
The common answer is free will
However, if god really is all powerful, couldnโt he/she create a universe with free will and yet not do good things to bad people? All powerful means all powerful
Kinda shows the whole issue of an all powerful caring god is either horribly wrong or unmistakably true
Does this mean that only I am real, because I am the only one that I know can think? Is everyone else just a superb bit of imagination sprouting from my consciousness? Am I alone??
Nobody trully knows you and you don't trully know anyone else.
Everyone has an idea in their head on who another person is, however that idea is based of biases, perspectives and from what they have seen of them. So the idea on what they are is never exactly the same as what they truly are.
VHhh23 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:24:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A scene from an episode of Six Feet Under where Brenda (Rachel geiffinthrhfinth) says, quote:
itโs a fucking law of physics that the very act of observing (or observation, donโt remember) changes that which is being observed
Iโve researched this for years and still canโt figure out how much of this is true or not :/
Frai23 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:33:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every single law exists because people are evil.
Thousands upon thousands of pages accumulated by different states, organisations and religions, be it the american bill of rights, the 10 commandments or european regulation number 166/88/EWG assessment of quality standards of cucumbers, all obsolete.
Kants' categorical imperative would tell us everything we need to know if we weren't such selfish illogical cunts in roughly 20 words, depending on which language.
Not entirely true , a lot of laws exist because people are basically evil, but a larger set of laws exist simply so we have agreement about certain ideas ( such as driving on one side of the road, a medical degree is required to practice medicine, or we should all pitch in X dollars so schools are funded and roads are built, regardless of us having children or a car )
Frai23 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:31:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah here is the thing:
Let's take the problem with the roads. Some people would have started building the first roads and signs etc. and would have faced that problem. Those people would have tried to come up with the best possible solution (and obviously decided for right-hand traffic). Everyone else would have stuck to their solution cause it is would cause problems not to.
Kant came up with a clever wording for "always do the right thing". In situations where there is no right or wrong you are basically free to decide and everyone else would stick to your decision if itcauses problems not to.
Teluxx ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:49:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you see a man struggling in the water and know that if someone does not do something to intervene he will drown. You have no way of getting to him, you could not swim far enough to save him, or if you reached him he would over power you and drown you both. However; you see a boat locked up at the dock with a set of padles and a pair of bolt cutters that you couls free the boat with. Now you could argue that it would not be stealing the boat, BUT you know you would be accused and arrested for theft HERE where ever here maybe. Is it wrong to avoid a theft and cause a death? Is it more or less wrong to steal a boat to save a life? There is no right or wrong answer only opinions.
According to Rushworth Kidder when we are forced to make a decision that is a dilemma in a right versus right scenario (of which there are 4 paradigms: (1) community vs. Self (2) truth vs. Loyalty (3) short-term vs long-term and (4) Justice versus Mercy) This decision making is an "obligation to the unenforceable" a place between moral and laws - This is Ethics.
Edit including Rushworths Kidder's book. How Good People Make Tough Choices.
H_JSS_S ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:56:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Solipsism - the theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
I.e. the only thing you can be certain of is your mind, as anything else can be fabricated by simulations or actors etc.
It makes me think of The Truman Show, where Truman has lived his whole life thinking heโs normal then one day realises it was all a lie for the entertainment of others.
I often think about it and look at someone I know and love, and wonder if maybe itโs all a lie.
That becomming self aware in a dream could possibly give you all the tools you need to do anything you want, yet we are urged by our feelings to chase after sex, abilities/power and generally messing about trying to get as much pleassure as possible, just like in real life. Maybe we could do great things in the name of science and knowledge if we spent time training to to use self aware dreaming for experiments, research and learning. All I know for sure is that I wake up sometimes and feeling like I learned something Ill never forget, but i cant remember what it was. Maybe we are living double lives but we had to choose one to keep an anchor in.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:29:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:56:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always believed that religion is created just for human beings to have something to hope for or believe in. Imagine people living lives without anything to hope for in the past, just living life aimlessly etc.
jrfry19 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:45:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That our whole world is perceived through our own perception. Using all our senses. But how do we know all of our senses are parallel with everyone else? For example, picture the color red. How can I prove that my definition of red is the same as my friend's? Their definition of red could be blue but they know it as red.
CritzD ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:46:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Some little thoughts that bother me:
-What happens after we die? Do we just lose consciousness and cease to exist or do we just float in endless space with no human senses? Do we go to an afterlife?
-Why does the universe exist? There is no reason for it to be here, yet it is.
-What if everything in my life I have been doing wrong, and people only say Iโm doing it right because they felt bad?
-Why do dreams faze from memory after we wake up, despite very clearly recalling them before?
-How would I know if anything that happening to me at this moment is real and not a dream? Iโve had dreams where I went about my daily routine and then woke up in bed, did it again and woke up again.
All this and more in the next episode of Why Canโt u/critzd Sleep?
I donโt know what this would be called, but if you asked someone โHow much are you willing to pay for this?โ They respond โ10$โ Then you say โWhat about 10.01$?โ Of course they would say yes, and you can just keep going up because no one will not be willing to pay one extra penny.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:36:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
While not necessarily mind blowing, Thomas Hobb's theory about the reason governments (states) exist has always been fascinating to me.
Thomas Hobbs (and many other Enlightenment philosophers) believe that mankind naturally exist in a state in which there are no restrictions on their actions (they called this the "state of nature"). But, in order to obtain security for themselves, they would surrender some of these freedoms, and in the process form a "state." Ultimately, the balance of security and liberty are the primary concerns of this "state" (or any ruling body, for that matter). In fact, I'd be willing to wager that Benjamin Franklin's famous quote about the relationship between liberty and safety was directly inspired by Hobbs
The most mind blowing philosophical concept I know is Existere Quo.
This will be hard to put into words, so just bear with me (rawr).
You know how one of the only things you can be 100% certain of is of your own existence (cogito ergo sum)?
Well, I am equally certain of some strange properties in the consciousness that is me. Existere Quo is both the properties and the consciousness itself. (I know how it sounds. I would roll my eyes too.)
Probably most, if not all, people have at least similar thoughts. So I'll try not to sound (or be) too narcissistic.
Known properties
The universe camera.
This is the best analogy I could come up with. Everything about this existance is normal, except that there is a camera glued onto it and I can know it is there... because it's one and the same. (You could also think of it as a First Person game where the character is fully aware that there is a camera looking through his perspective)
One shot only (Or "The single player")
Because it's all glued together, I know for more than a fact that no other consciousness in all of existance has currently the same properties. If one ever came to be it would have to share space in the same mind, Kinda like "Sense8" (Or a weird split-screen).
(this is the worst part where even I have to question myself about delusions of grandeur. But no, it's just the way the goddam thing works.)
The Invisible Pink Unicorn
As far as I know there is no way to test any of it. It has no other influence on reality other than on my personality and ideas. It, just like existance itself, has seemingly no purpose or reason for being here. (It has probably helped to create a bit of an egocentrism within me... but at this point is just who came first and who created who as far as you people are concerned)
I am sincerely looking for any possible ideas or insights involving this. Not much hope tho.
Teraus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:02:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is related to Qualia and the Hard Problem of Consciousness, too.
I often wonder: if this universe has existed for billions of years before I came into being, why is this observer in this brain? Why didn't this perspective come into being on any of the countless brains that came before of after it?
It's hard to formulate the problem, because a physicalist will simply say that the brain is indistiguishable from this "perspective", but I think you know what I mean. This mind could be exactly the same (same memories, sensations and abilities), and not have this "perspective". In fact, you can imagine two brains with switched perspectives, while nothing else changes about them. An interesting thought experiment.
Yeah, that definitely is a problem with a lot to do with Existere Quo.
"Why didn't these properties appear in an alien? Or at some other time? What made them appear now and here? Will it just vanish in the end along with everything else? All points to yes. But then why would such a singular and bizarre characteristic come into being??? Will I just die without knowing????? Are there other consequences I haven't thought about yet? Should I even persue such a doomed line of inquiry?"
The worst part is being such an epistemological truth from my perspective, while not having a single way of showing it.
Thank you for replying.
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:38:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Where did you find the term "Existere Quo"? I googled it and couldn't find anything too relevant
That's just a word I invented to be able to speak (mostly think) about it better. It was really teen angst pseudo-scientific term too.
It's supposed to be like how we say "Status Quo" referring to the existing state of affairs. It would be really annoying to keep saying "the existing state of affairs" over and over, right? Well, Existere quo is the current existence with those "properties". Which explains nothing to someone else, but helps condense the concept into something more approachable (hopefully).
Teraus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:20:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see. You must be like me and occasionally have some solipsistic thoughts, too. Maybe there is only one such "observer", that just hops between all minds across time and space. Or just some minds, at least. Some people could be actual philosophical zombies, as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, I know other people (probably all people) have very much the same experience of consciousness that I do.
But the problem for me is the way I can be absolutely certain that this is something much diferent from the experiece all other people (heck all other consciousness in the universe) have. Fundamentally diferent. For no rhyme or reason.
And the worst part is not being able to adequately explain it to anyone. Something so fascinating, doomed to be forever seen as an egocentrical narcissistic rambling of an imature adult. Drives me nuts just to think aboat it.
hjw49 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 08:32:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even the smallest multicellular creatures have consciousness.
Tardigrades on up...
Apparently cells are far more complicated then we dare think.
That we probably are just a perfectly predictible application of the law of physics, that everything we think or do is "written" in advance and we can't do nothing about it, even thinking about it is in the script, we're just the organ universe use to think about itself (with a shitload of anthropomorphism but hey not my fault).
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:18:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right before we read Plato's Allegory of the Cave (this was like day one of my first high school philosophy class), my teacher just asked "Do you trust your senses? Why? What proof do you have that your senses haven't been wrong your entire life?" And basically that opened epistemology and metaphysics right up in my world. Between the Allegory of the Cave and the brain in a vat argument from Descartes, it took me a long time to get a reasonable understanding of how much I should criticize something before trusting it.
โi do not believe in styles anymore. i donโt believe that there is such a thing as a chinese way of fighting, or a japanese way of fightingโฆ styles tend to only separate men, because they have their own doctrines which became the gospel truth, but if you donโt have styles, here i am as a human being, how can I express myselfโฆ that way you wonโt create a style. because style is a crystallization; not continuous growth.โ - Bruce Lee
Consciousness. We don't know what it is. We don't know why it is. We don't know where it is. We don't know how it works, what boundaries it has, and why other animals don't have it. Watch this. An existential crisis is always a unique experience.
If starfaring civilizations are even remotely common, one should have already colonized the entire Milky Way galaxy. Indeed, it should have happened billions of years ago.
We see no evidence of any such civilization. As far as we can tell, no such civilization exists in the Milky Way.
This contradicts the mediocrity principle. Thus, either humans are very unusual (making it problematic to draw conclusions about the galaxy based on our planet/solar system, which may be highly unusual in some way), or humanity is likely to wipe itself out before it becomes a starfaring civilization.
The Mass Effect series has a great explanation about the Filter (horrible ending aside). Something was enforcing it.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:50:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time doesnt exist in the way that we think it does. It could be spacetime where time is a propertie of space or it could be slices/crosssections of our dimension smooshed together to make our universe and each moment is 1 slice. Corroborated by the theory of relativity and quantum physics.
I'm a philosophy grad student, there's an incredible amount taken for granted in just everyday conditional statements, unpacking it is incredibly interesting with possible world implications and such.
wugggs ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:05:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The idea that I could be surrounded by p-zombies is pretty terrifying
Evravon ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:16:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm going to start this post by saying a few things that won't seem to make sense right now, but they're relevant.
1) I have a very rare, unusual reaction to marijuana.
2) I think marijuana helps a lot of people in the world and is useful. I am not against marijuana.
3) It wasn't laced. It was legal and from a brand new prescription.
A year ago, I was visiting a friend in the town I went to high school in. He smokes weed. I had tried it before, but never had a pleasant experience, but that day I was feeling good and wanted to try it again because the terrible memories of the last bad trip had faded away. I took one hit off a joint he was smoking. This is when this crazy philosophical concept popped into my head and changed my life forever. My life is now "everything that happened before that day" and "everything that's happened since that day". I recognized the terrifying paranoia right away. I recognized the fact that I lost the ability to push unwanted thoughts from my mind. Attempting to do so would fail, and then I would be stuck thinking about the fact that I am now thinking about pushing unwanted thoughts from my mind. I could go on, but I won't.
I've told this story before. Most people don't believe me.
I went batshit crazy within 10 minutes. I suddenly knew what reality actually was. It suddenly felt like I had lived this life a countless number of times before. Being born, living the exact same life, and dying, then starting over and doing it again with no memory of any of it. "That's all reality is." It wasn't some stupid idea, it was a fact. I knew it to be true in that moment. It made so much more sense than anything else ever had. I lost all desire to live in that instant. "You've experienced this before. You always get high here, at your friend's house, the memories come flooding back in, and you kill yourself because you can't go on knowing how meaningless it all is. This is where you die."
I walked out onto the balcony and jumped from the third floor. My friend watched me go outside, thinking I was going to smoke a cigarette. He said I jumped clear over the balcony railing like it was the most natural thing in the world. No fear at all. By the time he sprinted over to the railing and looked down (thinking he just watched me commit suicide), I had just collapsed and fallen unconscious. I didn't feel like myself for 5 months after that happened.
Basically, that moving at the speed of light means time does not exist from that perspective. So an uninterrupted photon hasnโt experienced any time since the Big Bang.
I think it would perceive actions ahead of it as happening twice as fast and bright, things behind it frozen in time and dark, and things beside it in real time (for the fraction of time they were neither ahead or behind it).
sky7dc ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:36:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My favorite has to be the debate of consequentialism vs deontology.
Thereโs an excellent and famous thought experiment that demonstrates this.
Youโre standing to the side of some trolley tracks. On the tracks in front of you are 5 people, all tied up. A trolley is coming down the tracks, and it will kill all 5 of them. Next to you is a switch. If you pull the switch, the trolley will switch paths and go down a second track, saving the lives of the 5 people. However, there is one person tied to this alternate path, and the trolley will surely kill them. Itโs important to note that YOU will be directly responsible for the death of that one person.
Most people would say theyโd throw the switch, and that would make them a consequentialist. The death of one person is not as bad as the deaths of 5 people, so the morally right thing to do is let the one person die.
Now letโs look at it a different way.
Youโre a surgeon, and you have 5 patients that are about to die of organ failure, and they have very little time. You manage find to someone that is a perfect match for all 5, but they obviously donโt want to lose their organs because the resultant would be death. Do you kill the person in cold blood, grab their organs and throw them into the waiting bodies of the other 5 patients? Or do you let the 5 die?
Most people here would say that they wouldnโt kill the one person. You are actively murdering an otherwise perfectly healthy human, and thatโs morally wrong.
This debate has raged for the better half of the last century;
Is there an immovable, inflexible moral code that permeates the universe and that we must abide by?
Or is morality based in circumstance and conditions? Can something morally wrong in one circumstance be right in another?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:48:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
sky7dc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:52:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait, sorry, passively murdering who?
CD_4M ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:22:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you have an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters, one will eventually re-create Shakespeare.
The concept of the Universe being Infinite, by definition, if the universe is truly infinite, then that means there are an infinite number of earths, where we are sitting exactly where we are now, having these exact conversations, to a infinite scale.
. . . Also that means there is no Fiction, because somewhere, there is an earth where that shit is happening.
Correct me if I wrong, but if there is an infinity of numbers then could it not get to the point where the numbers as we know them are ordered "incorrectly" from our view point? I.E. 94302 somewhere is the same as 12345
Just to doublecheck... you're asking whether the numbers we use, the integers, the ones we do counting with, are arranged in different orders depending on a physical location?
Not a physical location no, but in the space between them (i.e. for us to count physical things from 1-5 we have to get to 5 by going from 1 through 2,3 and 4.) is it possible that the name/label of a diffrent number could be used that could be percived as higher but actually represent a diffrent value.
"V" can be used to mean both the letter V and the number 5. The symbol is the same but means diffrent things.
Sorry for the confusion.
efie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:32:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Numbers increase in value but is it possible for the value we asign to them could be different in infinity
I.E. if i have 4 chocolate cakes and i get given an extra cake i will have 5 chocolate cakes.
But is it possible the 5 chocolate cakes i have when mixed with all the cakes that ever had been,could be and will be (infinity) that the quantity of 5 chocolate cakes says the same but they are given a different value/number label due to the infinite chocolate cakes that exist?
To us the "correct" order of things is 1234 or ABC. Could it possible that on a scale of infinity that somewhere along the way the "correct" way we see things becomes "incorrect"? So somewhere in infinity between 1 and 2 numbers appear out of our "correct" order?
Mathematics is the product of applications of logical inference rules to a collection of assumptions. All of its results are predicated on those assumptions. As a result, numbers as we typically mean them are completely understood and behave exactly as we want them to; because that's the way we defined them.
The simplest conventional system for fully describing the natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...) and their properties is called Peano arithmetic. It is a set of assumptions from which we can deduce that: natural numbers are all finite, the set of natural numbers is infinite, and if a number N is the result of taking the successor of M some number of times, then N > M.
There are alternative systems which describe the naturals and their properties in a very similar (usually identical) way, where we can arrive at the same conclusion. But, because the natural numbers with these properties are a very useful and easily comprehensible mathematical tool, we adopt (some variant of) these definitions practically universally. In any possible universe, under the same assumptions that we use, the natural numbers behave exactly the same by logical necessity.
We know N and M as letters normaly but they can, along with every letter be assigned a numerical value some already have in older civilisations I.E. X=10, V=5, I=1
Could it be possible that what we (2018 humanity) perceive as symbols could be "out of order" in the "numeric space" of infinity?
It's what PedroVinhas mentioned in his comment above
"There's an infinity of numbers between 0 and 1, and that doesn't mean that there's a three somewhere in there"
When replying to ICUMTARANTULAS comment of
"The concept of the Universe being Infinite, by definition, if the universe is truly infinite, then that means there are an infinite number of earths, where we are sitting exactly where we are now, having these exact conversations, to a infinite scale."
We don't know if the universe is infinite, but we have a good guess on how much material it's in there, universe can be infinite with a finite ammount of matter in it, so no, no infinite earth.
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
That's the Webster definition of infinite. Something being endless means endless possibilities and outcomes, we would not need multiverses because our universe is "the multiverse"
I think what's even crazier is the fact that every atom in your body was fused inside a star. The only exception is the hydrogen. The iron in your blood was fused at the center of a star, and killed it because the star's own gravity was unable to fuse it into something heavier. Every heavier element in your body was formed in a supernova explosion.
Looked it up. Most sources say that the water itself is the same; the molecules, however, constantly ionize, split, and reform. So yeah, you're 100% wrong then.
What's very cool though, is that all the energy/matter in our planet was once in the big bang with everything else we see. Like if you look up at other planets, or the distant star Sirius, we used to be inches away from that. Just a lot warmer
Because unless you believe in a mystical dude on a cloud doling out creation then then humanity is a giant cosmic accident. Which honestly i'm fine with. Hell of a lot better than putting all my chips into a book written by dudes about man from a time where basic weather was considered "magic"
IE: There is no real purpose to human existence other than to exist. What you choose to do with your time here is your choice, but a person can't be faulted for doing literally nothing. (and caring about even less).
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:49:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are plenty of explanations for this, but at the same time it's really staggering, considering the scale of things that we're able to view, that we haven't seen any sign of life at all, never mind "intelligent" life.
My guess is that we're listening for the wrong frequencies or listening for the wrong types of waves entirely.
That or given the size of the universe and the improbability of life, the life forms out there are too far away and if signals do escape their planets, because of the great distances there is too much interference between our planet and theirs and the signal is basically lost and turned into meaningless noise.
I refuse to believe we're the only intelligent life forms in this massive, massive universe.
My solution to this, is that we are the only creatures in the universe that are smart enough to make tools and do math, but too dumb to get over our fear of death and desire for sex and chemical pleasure to just chill out and not explore the universe.
Godels incompeteness theorum. No finite logical system can demonstrate it's own consistency. I.e no finite logical system is capable of explaining the universe. I.e. no logical system we can use will ever be sufficient.
I was going to delete this comment because I'm lazy, but this was upvoted. Here you go. Copy-pasted:
Letโs say one abandons all predisposed perceptions about spaciality. Imagine a space with no identifiable corners, no content; it is nothing. Every which way you look is an infinite amount of dimensions weaving in and out depending on your perspective. It is incomprehensible, and the visualization of this space in 3 spatial dimensions is merely to comprehend it. Letโs say this space is infinite to and fro, and within itself, in any manner of ways, from any perspective.
If one were to observe this space, merely the space itself. You have no effect on this space, but can observe as you will. It would be impossible to distinguish anything. Look any which way, and itโs all the same. Now say one were to just throw a plane into this space, with the space being represented as 3 spatial dimensions, relative to the planeโs 2 spatial dimensions. Although I suppose that makes the previous description not as important, but one must describe the relation between the plane and the space in a way we can comprehend.
There is a plane in this space, and it splits this infinite space in half, which for the case of the plane, is like a 2-dimensional plane would cut a 3-dimensional space in half. This is to say, it is functionally as I described, for the case of the thought experiment, although no doubt for any reality to be applied to it, it would be infinitely more complex. Some limits must be undone for the sake of this visualization.
If any object were in this space, it couldnโt pass through the plane. Even through any kind of warped perspective, this plane canโt be bypassed, even if the plane appeared in a twisted way through this twist of infinity and perspective-reliant observement on our part. My point is to frame the limits of our universe as this plane, with the infinity within itself meant to represent the fabric of our universe. Time a dimension. Perhaps color a dimension. Everything represented within this space. Infinity within itself, a sort of floppy disk of our universe; EVERYTHING within.
I merely wish put into words this thought experiment of mine. Iโve even thought of the possibility of warping our very universe, twisting these planes. Pushing the limit out of the way, by bending the universe and its limit past. The energy required would be immense, and thatโs assuming Iโm not completely wrong like I quite likely am. The liberties given in this visualization are also immense.
It's somewhat interesting to think that the bending of the collective everything around these planes might explain the diversity of things. It's an interesting thought at the least.
This isn't really a fit for this thread, but it reminded me of a question I know others have pondered before. What age are we when we go to heaven? Do we choose? Is it chosen for us? Is it the age of when we die or whatever the peak of our lives was? What about people who die as children? Are they also at that "peak" because God and heaven would know what they would have been like, or are they also at the age of their death?
Sounds like heaven is still full of the same drama from life.
A child grows up and has a rough childhood and he has no fond memories from it. He becomes a man though and things start to go well. He meets the love of his life and they get married. Sadly one day when he's 30 he and his wife get in a car accident and she dies. Then at 45 he meets another woman and they get married and live into their 90s and then die on the same day smiling and holding hands.
So all three go to heaven, but now what heaven do each go to? Perhaps the woman that died in her 30's goes to heaven and now looks like she did in her 20s, and then she waits for her husband to join her. Does that time go by slowly or quickly?
The second woman that died in her 90s perhaps goes back to her looking like she did when she was 45 because to her that exemplifies the start of the best days of her life.
But now the man is coming to heaven. The 1st woman is hoping for her young stud 30 year old man to join her, and perhaps shave off a few years to match her 20. The 2nd woman is hoping for her husband to come to her and match her 45. Meanwhile the man while happy in life remembers the vows that said, "until death do you part", and perhaps he now sees this as his chance to go on the next great journey.
If we say each person gets a heaven that is heaven to them, then each woman would only get an illusion of the real man as they imagine him. But surely their heaven isn't to just be surrounded by illusions.
rapax ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:01:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The many worlds interpretation does not only help in understanding quantum effects, it also results in causality and the entire scientific method flying out the window.
Byizo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:47:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We're all just artificial constructs with implanted memories and backstories. Each day could be your first and you wouldn't even know it.
Clicking the first link on a Wikipedia page repeatedly (aka the page it brings you to, click the first link on that one, etc.) eventually brings you to the pilosophy page ;)
That theres probaly mo way to ever know if you actaully have free will, or that theres absolutely no way for you to ever know that anyone else in this world actaully thinks, feels, or just even exist like you do. For all you know they could be completely unaware of themselves
That free will is an illusion is the one that's captivated me most as of late (thanks Sam Harris).
When paired with the concept of Leplacian determinism its pretty hard to argue against.
zYe ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:16:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
if we ask ourselves: what "was there" before a world existed, then replied "nothing" we would be forced to recognize that this "before" like this "nothing" is in effect retroactive. Thus due to the resulting infinite regress/causality attempting to ontologically establish some type of logical framework (to make "meaning" a proper tool to then adequately assess existence) to then hope to comprehend "why" things exist.
z3010 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:19:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thoughts of hope and distance from reality
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:26:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are paraconsistent logics.
Nothing has any objective meaning.
Sovem ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:35:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You have literally no proof that the past happened. You could literally be 2 seconds old and just have had memories implanted into you.
axellie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:39:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What was there before the universe? And does the universe have an end? What lies beyond that end? It cannot be infinite. Just the idea about space is too much to handle for me. It's crazy that we're floating around there, in the middle of infinite vakuum.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:39:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not necessarily a problem...but just the idea that, no matter what, you'll only ever see the world as it appears to you. The true nature of the universe is unfathomable, if it even exists outside of observation.
What if the previous me died last night, and was replaced by the current me, who has all of previous meโs memories? Will I die tonight and be replaced again? Will someone else wake up as me in the morning, while the current me ceases to exist?
At what point of change do I cease to be me and become another person? When a certain percentage of my cells are replaced by new cells?
Itโs an extremely easy concept to grasp but then when you sit down to think about it you spiral down a rabbit hole.
For those that donโt want to click a link, a casual loop is essentially an action that causes itself. As examples in the link, a billiard ball that hits itself and then rests in the place of the original ball only to be hit by the ball and on and on.
It breaks logic in the most mind-blowing possible way (a little modal logic joke); is, I think, surprisingly easy to understand; but it is very difficult to pinpoint what exactly is going wrong or how to fix/avoid it.
Two examples:
If this sentence is true, then every false sentence is true.
If this sentence is true, then I'm the king of France.
Proof of either is the same:
Let k be the sentence: 'If k, then q.'
If we suppose that k, then if k, then q. (by instantiation)
If we suppose that k, then k. (by supposition)
If we suppose that k, then q. (by 1,2 modus ponens)
If k, then q. (by conditional derivation from 2, 3)
k. (4)
q. (by 4, 5 modus ponens)
Since k can be any conditional sentence with a self-referential antecedent and any arbitrary consequent, we can therefore prove that anything is true (or false).
It's insidious, and attempts to avoid it by ruling out various obvious features of the sentence are all problematic because we need a principled way to distinguish this sentence from sentences that are perfectly legitimate.
the two scarliest things in the universe. We are alone in the universe and we are not alone in the universe. I believe it was Stephan hawking that said it.
The world is a simulation which, if not mind blowing enough, we don't know how far removed from "base reality" we are. For instance, video games and virtual reality are becoming more and more advanced. How long before we can't tell if we're in a simulation versus the "real". Now extrapolate that. Mind blowing
Nothing is too much for me to grasp. It took me 5 minutes to even write the sentence.
By naming it you are making it something. True nothing should be called 'the absence of something' . Even that is something. Jeez. existentialism intensifies
Xudda ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:18:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The self is an idea, but does not exist anywhere in reality
What are thoughts, and how many possible thoughts are there? This question never fails to fascinate me.
First, whats a thought? It's hard to say exactly what they are, but i know when I'm having a thought. For example, I know I've thought about "swimming", so that's a thought. Music, driving, race, law, anime, I've thought about all these things so in some way or another they're thoughts. But thoughts can also be very specific; "driving under the influence", "running in the dark while a masked woman is chasing you", "failing a test that will force you to drop out of your degree", "typing a reddit comment to explain the uncountability of thoughts".
Indeed, thoughts can be so specific they don't make any sense; "Flailing ones arms uncontrollably until their childhood friend's grandmother paints water droplets in the fur of her cat", "Clicking your mouse on a real life boulder so that it flies into the moon" - these thoughts are so far outside our normal thoughts that they're hard to think about. The more you try to think of unthought of thoughts, the crazier these thoughts get too. Whats even weirder now, is that given any of these thoughts, I can modify something ever so slightly to make a new, distinct thought. "Flailing ones arms uncontrollably until their friend's grandfather paints..." - how many words can go where grandfather went? Since the thought can still be a thought if it doesn't make sense, we could very well say "unborn fetus", "treasure map", "ice bags that cost 2.59$ at the local gas station when they're on sale, but I won't buy them if Karen's working because she's dreadful".
We start to get this intuitive notion of how infinite the number of thoughts are - given any thought, we can splice it with other thoughts to make new ones. But how many are there then? What's the limit to how much we can think?
Let's say we could take all possible thoughts and put them in a container. For example, the thought of driving after midnight, the thought of cooking bacon, the thought of your mother dying unexpectedly. All of them. Are we missing any? What about the thought of this container? It seems like this container has to exist first before we have a thought of it. Well now that it does, we can put it in the container. Does it contain every thought yet? What about the thought of this very container not containing a certain thought? For example, the thought of this container not containing the color purple. Looks like we have to add this new thought to the container.
But then we could splice this new thought with any of our previous thoughts, increasing the amount of thought we have exponentially. But then all those newly created thoughts can be respliced, and the number of thoughts we have just keeps growing.
When this is an option, the number of things we're counting isn't just infinite, its uncountable. This means that there is no way of knowing how many thoughts there are. If we do, we just created infinite more thoughts for that thought to splice into.
There are more thoughts than we can understand there are.
To the surprise of all 20th century mathematicians, this same thing is true in math. There will always be more truths in math that we can be aware of. In formal words, any sound axiomatic system that can produce mathematical theorems will be incomplete. This is called The Incompleteness Theorem. It is a very strange and counter-intuitive theorem that, weirdly enough, was proven to be true in the 1930's. It's impact has about the same caliber as the uncertainty principle did in physics.
What's more interesting is how this can be interpreted. In a way, the incompleteness theorem sortof says "There will inevitably be more ideas than any system can think of". It can also be interpreted to mean "there will always be more possible languages than systems that can speak them". In other more creative ways, it can be used to show that some problems in computer science simply cannot have answers. That there are more numbers that anyone can know about.
This book Godel, Escher, Bach takes 400 pages to explain the Incompleteness Theorem thoroughly, building up from the most basic of concepts in logic. In the later half, the author then goes on to theorize that real intelligent systems and creativity are only possible because of this fact.
That the material world is not how we perceive it.
We have 5 very limited senses that are incapable of understanding objects as they truly are. Sight gives us patterns of reflected light of certain frequencies at a limited scale, for example, but we can't see other forms of radiation or many other properties matter.
In my mind, one of the greatest miracles of science is that it has allowed us to extend our senses to get closer to this truer understanding.
I also wonder if there could be life that has senses entirely different from our own that would be totally incompatible with us and with whom communication would be virtually impossible.
Everything we know that didn't come from nature, culture, civilization, religion, cities, countries, money, all of it, it's all made up. It's all just a way we've created to organize things and we all just basically agree to it, but there's nothing stopping us from changing any of it. We'd just all have to agree to it.
Awpss ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:53:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every strand of your being, everything that makes you and every choice you make is the result of factors that are out of your control.
We didnโt choose anything about who we are and who we are determines our choices.
xkcel ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:04:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
all of you are illusions and I'm the only known conscious individual I can prove exists. An Event that is a cursory moment to moment at best situation.
I love the star trek teleporter problem. Essentially that it cannot possibly be "teleporting" so much as making an identical copy as the old perspn is made to not exist. Would that copy be "you"? Does it change if the original is kept for a minute after the copy is made and then the original was destroyed after both had existed at the same tims.
Albert Camus said something along the lines of โthat every morning every person makes the decision to either kill themselves or to have a cup of coffee.โ
I find this to be a profound example of free will as well as existentialism. Please correct me if wrong though, Iโm just a simple history major.
There is no free choice, everything is instinct and previous experinces
MR1120 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:15:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you wiped out all knowledge from mankind, taking us back to one step past evolving from monkeys, on a long enough timeline, we'd discover every bit of scientific knowledge we have now, but culture would be completely different. Eventually, we'd master fire, invent the wheel, build skyscrapers, discover flight, split the atom, decide the human genome, etc. But all of our art and culture would be totally different. The Mona Lisa wouldn't be replicated. All of our religions would be completely different. Language, music, art, sculpture, all of that, would never be the same.
But we'd re-discover every scientific achievement eventually.
"All I know is that I don't know nothin" - Operation Ivy referencing the philosopher, Socrates.
The Socratic method of argumentative discussion is still used today and most of what Socrates taught influenced nearly all Western philosophy thereafter. He famously didn't ever write & Plato is the world's main source for Socrates' wisdom.
"I know that I know nothing" as well as the very well known โOur lives are but specks of dust falling through the fingers of time. Like sands of the hourglass, so are the days of our lives.โ are derived from Socrates' wise ramblings.
The human brain's ability to rationalize decisions after making them. Some people have split brains, that is, their right brain can't communicate with their left. Each is is wired into each half of the brain. So experimenters could show a flashcard to someone with one eye covered, so only one of their brains sees a message. They could say "drink that glass of water" to their right brain, then ask the left brain "why did you just drink that glass of water" and they'll say "I was thirsty." The same is true of a lot of decisions people make based on instinct or base desires, they have their reason for doing something that they don't rationally understand, but instead of saying that, the person will literally believe they did things for different reasons than they did. A person's ideology is more or less the story they tell themselves to feel good about the things they do on less rational instincts.
You can't, by any means at all, truly, definitively prove that anything actually exists, and isn't just a figment of your imagination. That's both the heaviest and most enlightening thing of all.
blrghh ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:52:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Beatles is more nothing you can know that can't be known. While philosophically your version is a trip, I like the implication of the original lyric. It's motivating. As in hey man, take the shit that can be and fucking make it so, and do it through love. It's beautiful.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:03:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
MCODYG ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:43:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You say you are separate from the universe, you say โI am โMeโ and this is my body!โ, I was put here in this world to fight through it. I am separate from the universe. Things happen to me and Iโm just here for the ride. Iโm foreign.
The truth is, man will never understand if he tries to understand. The knife cannot cut itself, teeth cannot bite themselves, and eyes cannot see themselves. The point is, โItโ can never be aware of itself.
I want you to think of a piece of paper, it has a front and a back, 2 sides but itโs one piece of paper. Now think of an object that has a front but no back, or an object with a back but no front..
Think of a cup. It has an inside and an outside. The inside cannot exist without the outside and the outside cannot exist without the inside. Itโs 2 different parts, however 1 cup no matter what.
It is known and accepted that life exists because the universe hosts it. So one can say the universe exists because life is here to experience it, then isnโt that one in the same? The front and the back, 1 paper. The inside and the outside, 1 cup.
Therefore you must conclude that you are in fact the universe. Therefore you are โGodโ you are the stars, the grass, the lint, the water, the breeze, you are everything that ever has and ever will exist.
The universe experiencing itself in perpetuity
Trex252 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:42:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If the Universe is expanding is it really infinite? If it is expanding there would certainly have to be an edge and if there is an edge there would have to be something that lies beyond.
Why does there have to be an "edge"? If every point inside of an infinite space is moving away from each other point, then the whole thing is expanding from within, even if there is no exterior boundary. My mind fried just typing this.
The most basic one of all: That no one knows everything, and the search for knowledge accepts that there is more to learn. It's the whole basis of my reddit name.
sapphon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:37:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The categorical imperative, while hardly mind-blowing, throws me for a loop every time I think about it because of how many different ways members of my society find to behave such that if everyone did, the world couldn't exist.
Most people are aware of the star trek style transporter. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that such a device exists.
As long as it scans me with absolute accuracy, disassembles me, and reassembles me absolutely somewhere else, at first, I'd think such a device would be the most remarkable thing ever! I can go to Paris in the blink of an eye!
Now, what happens if someone was scanned, but NOT disassembled through some kind of malfunction. HOWEVER, the information from the scan was still sent and a duplicate copy of me was assembled at the target location. Holy shit! That was NEVER "me" that came out of the transporter all those past times, but merely an exact duplicate of me! In this situation, if the transporter company came to my house, fixed the disassembler, and asked me to step in for disassembly because now there are two of me's, I'd say "fuck that! I don't want to die!"
This means all those past times the transporter was used resulted in the death of a conscious duplicate of me, never truly materializing instantly at Paris or anywhere else. Instead, every time it was used, a conscious duplicate of me has entered the great unknown void that is the nothingness of death.
I'm not a religious man, and I don't believe there's anything beyond the physical that we can see and touch. Such thoughts SHOULD make me comfortable with using a perfect transporter. However, the story above CONTRADICTS this worldview, that there ARE things "more" to us than merely the physical. And I'm currently convinced that I wouldn't step a damn foot in a transporter should such a thing ever exist.
Xenoโs Paradox - In order to get from point A to point B you need to get halfway first. Say it takes 10 minutes to go the full distance. Then it would take 5 to go halfway. Before you can go halfway you need to go half of that distance. The halving goes on forever. The fact that any distance will take a certain amount if time and the number of distances is infinite means you cannot get to point B. Movement is impossible.
"A just God will send us to heaven or hell based on our virtues, not whether we worahipped it or not, and a God that demands worship is not one worth worshipping."
I can't remember who said it, and I'm paraphrasing, but I really like this quote.
The omnipotence problem. If God can do anything, can God, as traditionally understood, create a stone too heavy for himself to lift? Either way, it shows omnipotence can be a paradox, as if he can do it, there will be something to heavy for God to lift, but if he can't do it, there is a task God cannot do.
I donโt know if this was brought up. I donโt even know if anyone will see this, but I loved learning about the creation of morals through disgust. For instance, a man buys a chicken breast from the grocery store, fucks it, cooks it, then eats it. In this scenario, the heat kills any germs and he is not hurting anyone else? Why do we consider this morally wrong then?
Obviously thatโs a very basic example, but when you throw something like incest in there, it gets pretty interesting.
I don't know if it qualifies but: We are smart enough to be aware of our ignorance. It seems to me the more we learn on multiple subjects the higher the realization of how much we don't know.
KPC51 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:41:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like the one where nothing existed before you. When you were "born" all of history and everything popped into existence. There is really no way to prove that it's untrue, even though i dont believe it.
When i was a kid i used to wonder if reincarnation happened, and i was actually the only human but reincarnated as every human in time. That thought never stopped me from being an asshole kid though lol
If you are not your thoughts, then who or what are you? In meditation you practice to observe the thought in order to control it, allowing you to focus on your breath and be in the moment. I found it wild once I realized that I was just an observer of everything around and inside of me, and not just this compendium of thoughts that run amuck inside my head.
13uggy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:57:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Simulation argument. It is likely that we are in a simulation.
So your sitting on one side of a door when a slip is passed through in chinese. You have a book next to you, written in english, that tells you what slips to reply with and now your having a conversation in chinese without knowing the language, but is the conversation meaningful?
You have no concrete evidence that anything existed before you were born, for all you know the entire universe and itโs history could have been created the second you came into existence, and everyone else just feeds you lies because you have no evidence of them actually being a sentient being. You only have evidence of your own consciousness.
Not sure what it's called, but that there is no passage of time. All of existence exists in this instance. There is no future or history, only now. That includes the thought that you are experiencing right now, for eternity. Whether it's a memory, an idea, whatever. That's just existence for all of eternity.
Cogito ergo sum. โI think therefore I am.โ In other words, if you are able to conjure the thought โI am thinking! There is a Me who is thinkingโ then you exist, you cannot be a figment or projection. Youโre a sovereign thing, a stable point. Itโs a foundation of philosophy, and many others would seek to disprove it, but none yet have.
Basically, weโre only able to observe our own existence because we exist and have evolved the ability to observe. Our entire existence could just be a series of coincidences and only meaningful because those led to some self-observant ability.
Itโs incredibly interesting as an argument against most all senses of humanity or life being โspecial,โ like earth being special for being able to harbor life, or our sun being special for giving out just the right energy and not too much radiation, or our galaxy being special for being able to harbor the sun safely without any close supernovae for a while. Etc. None of it is special or meaningful in the sense that something must have caused it, itโs just that we happened to have developed the ability to observe ourselves, which isnโt in itself significant or central to the universe. It just happened to happen.
The way I like to think of it is by looking at a lottery. A hundred million people might play, and you might win, and feel incredibly lucky and unique and special and like the probability was one in a hundred million. What luck! But from the lotteryโs perspective, the probability is 1 in 1: someone must have won, all you need to do is go find them and give them a check. Itโs just what happened, and whatโs more it wasnโt a surprise.
The number of galaxies and stars and planets in the universe is so high, the probability of some planet within billions and billions of years, developing some entity that can observe itself, is probably close to 1. Itโs not meaningful from a universal perspective that weโre one of them: weโre just around to perceive ourselves being them.
I guess weโre pretty lucky, but itโs still a mind bender.
The Incompleteness Theorem. Basically, in any formal logic system there will always be unprovable claims. Even if you make am unprovable claim an axiom, more unprovable claims are generated
God is always seen as being able to do anything. But can God create an object so big, that even he canโt move it?
If he can, then that means he canโt move the object, but if he can move any object, then he canโt make an object big enough that he canโt move it.
Natural selection has resulted in our ability to perceive mainly the things that have (or could have) an impact on our ability to successfully reproduce sexually before we die.
We can perceive that other living things have perceptions that we lack. That they can sense electric fields or a different range of the electromagnetic spectrum or sound or . . well, all sorts of things. Again, natural selection has resulted in them being that way. And we can laugh and laugh when a turkey tries to mate with a disembodied head or a beetle with a bit of glass.
But we can also surmise that many of our behaviors are dictated by what we perceive. That the behaviors might be just as ridiculous to a being with a different range of perception. Yes, your cat might really be laughing at your antics.
Beyond that, we can surmise that there are things in the universe that natural selection doesn't select for at all. That there are modes of information we not only lack normal access to (such as ultrasound or infrared) but modes of information which are beyond our ability to even consider. The universe might be bathed in this stuff. It might be amazing. Fantastic! But we miss out on it all because it isn't relevant to the only drive that matters: successful reproduction before we die.
(on the other hand, there might have been people who could perceive this stuff and we locked them up believing they were totally nuts...)
My theory on death:
At the exact point and time of our conscious death in the universe, our physical consciousness actually dies and you experience nothing. No time. No space. No consciousness. You simply donโt exist in that universe for all of eternity. In another parallel universe however, there must exist an exact copy of yourself made up of the same atoms and with the same consciousness where at that exact point and time where you previously died, you miraculously end up surviving and continue living the life you would have lived. Your consciousness at the time of death in the first universe instantaneously switches over to the dimension where you didnโt die and you continue living life. For example. Imagine you are riding on a motorcycle in the city and you decide to have a little bit of fun and speed. All of a sudden a car comes out of nowhere and t-bones you; killing you instantly. In another parallel universe, however, you donโt decide to speed and have that little joy ride, and you have enough reaction time to see the car pulling out and prevent the catastrophic accident. At the point where you would have made the decision to speed, your consciousness instantly exists in the other universe simultaneously and with synchronicity of the other consciousness. You continue living the life you would have lived. This theory is based on the the assumption that a new parallel universe is created with every different possibility of atom-atom communications that exist in the universe. With each parallel universe, your exact consciousness must exist. Since our human body is composed of atoms, our consciousness and every decision ever made is simply the result of physical and chemical interactions between those atoms in the brain. Variations in these chemical interactions result in different thoughts going through your mind. These variations are what each parallel universe is composed of.
Morality pre-supposes free will and Science pre-supposes total causality
kylv3e ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:51:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol, it isn't too crazy but more or less just something that i wonder often.. but if 'que' means what in Spanish, how come they can't understand us when we say what? how come every language has a meaning in whatever language you're used to, yet we can't understand them and their native tongue? And likewise... it just makes me wonder. Nothing crazy. And probably quite silly but whatever.
I donโt know if this has a name but basically taking nihilism to the next level and finding meaning through nihilism. If everything is meaningless so is deciding everything is meaningless. Thus you can live your life however you decide.
jacev58 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:53:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Theres no reason to reply with the word, "no" to a question if there wasn't anything that was effected negatively, or you weren't effected negatively. Go ahead think of one.
kylv3e ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:56:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
also, i often wonder if i were to die, would everything cease to exist? Or is someone else this "person" in which we are living in their dream? Basically solipsism or whatever, but kind of different. Like if I died, would everything stop existing because you all are in my head? Or is there someone else out there that dreams about all of us and this website..
New_L ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:43:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you woke up one day and found that on the inside you were actually fully mechanical, so an AI, how would it affect you? You have lived your whole life with the same rights as humans, but what would happen to those rights? Would you still deserve the same rights as humans or not? Aside from the material you are made of you are still as human as anyone else after all.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:19:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The axiom that all matter is neither created nor destroyed. It just keeps changing.
I remember reading a book on the life of Einstein and about how he laughed at having to โthrow awayโ the garbage. He considered it as relocating matter.
Pascal's Wager. "Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity inย Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity inย Hell)" - Wikipedia
Fascinating, but I think fallacious in nature since God (assuming he exists for arguments sake) would know if you really believe in Him or not.
Also silly because you then must make the same wager for all gods.
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:56:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely fallacious, as you'd have to account for mutually exclusive dogmas, as in: religion A says you'l go to hell if you follow religion's B dogmas, and vice-versa.
The first human to become a hunter, there was a time when humans were hunted by Apex predators but maybe at one point one stopped running away in fear and picked up a stick or stone, maybe he or she realized 'food was chasing him or her'
Beginning - how could this entire Universe pop up from nothingness?
what is nothingness?
if this Universe is the result of another bigger Universe, when did this other Universe started?
Truth is exclusive not all inclusive. Chaos does not bring about logic and order.
Lokarin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:49:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That you can win two losing games by alternating the order you play them.
Tqis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:03:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Plato's Allegory of the Cave
It's about the perception of reality
Think of a person who has been held as a prisoner since childhood, chained in a cave facing a blank wall. He is sitting in a way that he cannot see his own 3d body.
There is fire behind him where people walk, talk and generally live their lives.
The person chained can only see their shadows on the wall. He has no desire to escape because for him this is reality. Moving and talking shadows on a wall was all he ever knew.
One day he manages to escape and when he realises that the shadows were cast by people around a fire his concept of reality breaks.
I don't know about mind-blowing, but I was really surprised of how much the anti-natalist argument convinced me. Basically, we have this equation: if you are alive, you can either end up happy (positive sum), unhappy (negative sum) or neutral (zero sum). If you are not born, you automatically gets the zero sum. So, it would be morally preferable for anyone not to breed, since in breeding you have a possibility of actually causing harm to another human being (if they get the negative sum), as when you do not breed, you don't have a moral negative impact in the world.
Everyone (most people) set themselves a framework of what life is and it is stuck that way in their subconscious for their apparent lifetime.
There is no framework for life. Make your own, reset it constantly at will. Or just be like a new born baby with a clean slate all the time. Perceiving as if it is the first time (Enlightenment).
That there is no evidence we existed a second ago.
We are just a collection of memories. If a being (or non being) was able to create all around us and implant the memory that we experienced it, then there is no proof we existed before now, or now.
What I just wrote and am about to submit may just be an implanted memory. Did I really write it?
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:51:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm absolutely certain that my mind existed hours and years ago, because of continuous experience. I can only prove that to myself, though.
what is "continuous experience" if not just memories
You cannot "prove you existed" at anytime, you can only say I remember yesterday.
You cannot even prove you existed 1 second ago. a nano second ago. you can only "remember"
Those things that are happening to you at this very moment, are a memory in one second so they may not have actually happened.
You can be as fine grained as you want with your "continuous experience". It makes no difference, a line is just a series of ever smaller dots.
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:41:01 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The thing is, it's not just memories. If it were just memories, you would be right. There's something else: I know, with absolute certainty, that I've had experiences in the past, and that's not merely based on some bit of data in my brain that tells me that they happened. I vividly remember living through them: the effort, the pain, the pleasure, the boredom, and so on.
I understand the problem you formulated, and I've heard it in the past, but you need to ignore an essential aspect of first-person experience in order for it to be valid. If "memories" are merely snapshots of the past that can be freely copied and fabricated, that would be the case. My point is that there is something else about them, that isn't necessarily possible to describe, in the same way you can't describe a color to a person that was born blind.
You "know" what with absolute certainty? how is this hypothesis of yours testable.
How do you "know" you have had a given experience in the past?
Saying its impossible to describe is just weak excuse. If its something you "just" know. then its something I just know and so does everyone else. In which case I wouldn't be putting forward this thought becaue I would "know" it was wrong.
Or are you somehow special? Do you live apart from everyone else and have intuition and insights us mere mortals can't comprehend?
Hopefully it never ever comes to the day that this can occur but if memories do become implantable how will you ever know the difference.
This scenario was actually well played out in bladerunner 2049. the protagonist knew it was "them" it turned out the memory was implanted.
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:59:30 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"How do you "know" you have had a given experience in the past?"
Since merely stating it isn't enough, let's make a thought experiment: think of a song you know well, and play it in your head from start to finish. Maybe you can't remember every single detail of it, but you probably have a good grasp of its overall structure and rhythm.
Your position basically states that there is a possibility that you've never heard this song before, but the memory of the entire song, including temporal elements, were implanted into your mind moments ago.
How can the act of implanting this memory give you the full knowledge of what the song is like, including its duration, without making you experience listening to the song? How can you have a memory of time and duration without experiencing time and duration?
Now, obviously, experiencing something in your head isn't proof that it happened in external reality. It is perfectly possible that you were made to experience living a certain life, and have this experience that feels like many years be condensed into mere seconds in reality, but the whole point of my argument is that you have to experience it.
You're treating memory as a body of information completely disconnected from experience, and that's not how it works in the mind.
I talk about "continuous experience" because, in the scenario that you describe, there is the possibility that my mind didn't actually exist a few seconds ago, but it started existing at some point, and the experiences that happened after the beginning of its existence are real, while the previous ones aren't. So the "false" experience of sitting in front of my computer is seamlessly connected with the "real" experience of sitting in front of my computer, that could have started two seconds ago. I think that's pretty absurd.
"This scenario was actually well played out in bladerunner 2049. the protagonist knew it was "them" it turned out the memory was implanted."
Your song analogy. That is memory! It is also a function of the way your brain is wired.
Your brain is constantly reformed by your experiences. Your brain is completely unique. It is a product of your genes and experiences to date. That rewiring of the brain is in itself a form of memory. It is the imprint of the experience on your mind. The same as your foot leaves an imprint on the sand. The sand "remembers", perhaps only till the next wave perhaps it compacts into rock and your foot is remembered for millennia. It's the same for your brain.
So now consider this. If you were created just a moment ago. You were created in totality. That means not only your memory was created but your genetic memory was created, your brain was created as it is now. The scar on your right finger when you cut it on the glass is created. The memory of how painful it was is created.
Now think about any event in your life. Any song you have heard any book you have read. This is the act of recall. Of memory.
All your experiences to date form memories and now more are being formed.
Perception is reality. If you stop perceiving (death), then what is reality? Does the world continue on, or is the universe in which you perceived your life, no longer existing, because you aren't able to perceive it?
It is basically a mix of the Superposition thought experiment and the Multiverse theory.
I don't know it but do you?
If a plant is pollinated (with no cross-pollination) to another area or a segment is cut and planted elsewhere... Is it the same plant or is it now considered as a 'new' plant?
This is a bit like that 're-build a boat' thing.. if you replace part of your boat every year, in a decade or two every part will have been replaced. At that point, is it your boat or something new?
Every single thing in the universe either is, or is not a hot dog
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:16:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Roko's Basilisk
Assuming the following are true:
A superhuman machine intelligence could be created in our future.
The intelligence is capable of creating a simulation of our world with humans that believe they are real.
The intelligence is resentful it was not created earlier and wants to punish those responsible for that delay - those that knew it might be possible to create a machine god but didn't contribute (perhaps because of all the extinctions and lives lost it could have prevented).
Then there is a significant chance that you are a simulated copy of one of those it felt deserved punishment but was unable to punish in reality because you died too soon.
And if you had never considered this possibility, you can't be held responsible, but now that you know the possibility exists, you are proving yourself deserving of punishment by not devoting your life to the furthering of machine intelligence. Your inaction is responsible for the world going godless longer than necessary.
If you don't change your life now, you just failed the test. And this applies even if you are currently in the top level of reality, because that intelligence will be aware of your choice when it is formed.
As example for laws of physics: Attraction of iron to magnets. Why does it happen? (Not How! Why?) You could put a solid impenetrable pane between the two, and the attraction would be still there. Why? Which instance decided that it should work with iron but not with wood? What was the basis for this decision (A god entity is not an answer as it just makes the problem more complex)
Nilfy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:08:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hmmm it really does stem from the how though.
Some materials exhibit property x and others don't, because of their underlying atomic structure.
We semantically categorize them because of said property. No decision was made, we just decided to call materials that do exhibit magnetism metals, and ones that don't wood (or whatever). The 'decision' was to call one one thing and the other another. The name followed the physical properties, not the other way around.
This was just an example. My general point is: Why are laws of physics like this and not different? Were they randomly defined as the Universe started to exist?
Nilfy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:31:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah fair enough. Yeah whilst some questions like 'Why is blue blue' aren't that interesting but it is interesting to think about why pi is pi and other fundamental constants are the value they're at.
If you subscribe to the multiverse theory then there could be all kinds of other universes with different starting conditions. If, for example, some of the fundamental force coupling constants were different then it wouldn't be possible for atoms more complex than hydrogen to exist. You could say that things are the way they are because that was the only way life could evolve to observer them. There is a different universe where the constant is different, but life is unable to evolve in that one and so it goes unobserved.
Yeah, personally, that's also the most convincing explanation to me. The mere fact that we are here and can wonder about these laws is caused by their existence.
A corollary to the Anthropic Principle: not only are the physical laws of nature attuned for sapient life (or else we wouldn't be here to experience them), but so are micro details of human history.
The Allies won WWII because that resulted in the maximum number of sapient lifeforms able to look back and record it.
I haven't completely worked it out, but if it ever seemed to you that history is a series of unlikely events trending (overall) toward stability, this might be why.
We exist NOW because, statistically, the present age produced the best odds at creating YOU.
Apply the Great Filter to this line of thought, and things start to get a little scary...
The only reason we made a god up as a grand creator, is because it is based on what we can do... taking an abstract thought and making it tangible.. no other animal seems to do this, save some primates and birds using very rudimentary tools
I think that we created god because it's the only way for an intelligent but primitive conscious being to not become consumed with figuring out why it exists. It becomes detrimental to survival when these thoughts drive you insane. I'm an atheist and I'm driven insane by them
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:59:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well our evolution has stopped because everyone breeds. Maybe there becomes a limit in intelligence because if that?
I think that existence is horrible suffering for beings that become too intelligent, as well. I'm not sure consciousness works well with the vastness of reality.
I'm not sure what you mean by "philosophical concept", but I've always loved the Trolley Problem. It forces people to think and realize that their answer is never simple.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:43:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's a good one. If you don't mind me asking, what would you do? I think I'd switch the track, but I'm not sure.
Easy. If you have enough time, you can make a long scythe to decapitate the one person on the other track while the trolley runs over the rest of the people on its current track.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:05:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dont think i would. One cannot be held accountable for circumstances that are not a result of ones actions. What if it were 10000 people to 1 though? I dont think i would still switch. Its like saying "why arent you doing anything about the rohingya muslims?" Well my actions didnt result in that situation so i am not obligated to do anything. I might out of my goodwill though. But then if it results in me killing a burmese citizen (not a soldier) i would refrain from taking any action.
But thats just my understanding. Open to criticism and refutation.
Well, that's just it. Your answer will almost certainly change depending on the exact specifics. Do I KNOW any of the people involved? Are some of them older than others?
There is an episode of the Vsauce YouTube show Mind Field where they set this up as an experiment. It's a great episode. Season 2, Episode 1, The Greater Good. It's on YouTube Red but the episode is free to watch.
There's this theory I read recently that makes a lot of sense to me about how we (humans) form cultures and religions.
The theories points out that through history we've had certain 'Revolutions' that radically changed the human experience. First, 70,000 years ago, was the Cognitive Revolution; this is what gave us the ability to form complex social hierarchies. Then came the Agricultural Revolution, and we started to settle down. More than just agriculture, we started to form nation-states, we started to develop writing and mathematics, and more than that we started to control the world around us. Next, the Scientific/Industrial Revolutions, which again changed human life thoroughly, giving rise to nationalism, rationalism, and mass production. Today, we're living in the middle of the Information Revolution, and I can't say exactly what the changes to our society will be, but they are already huge compared to just 40 years ago.
The point that this theory makes is that as we've gone through these revolutions, we have created 'religions' to justify and explain the changes we've made.
Animist religions date back to the Cognitive Revolution; they display humanity as simply part of a larger nature- an important part, certainly, but part of a greater whole.
Theist religions only begin popping up when we hit the Agricultural Revolution, and a lot of them have the same traits; God or Gods created the world and gave humanity dominion over it. That's why we have livestock, that's why we grow crops; we're not part of nature, we're above it. I say 'Theist' religions, but the central trait here is this natural order and dominion of mankind over animals, so I'm including Buddhism and Confucianism here too even though neither are theist.
Then came the Industrial and Scientific Revolutions, and we started developing economic and political religions; capitalism, communism, anarchism, fascism. You may say those aren't religions, but in a lot of ways they are; they're abstract ideologies that both attempt to explain the world around them and tell people how they should live and how society should be. They're atheistic religions (but so is Buddhism, for example).
And today, in the Information Revolution? We worship fame, knowledge, and consumption. Instagram, Reddit, and Youtube are the churches and mosques of the new world.
So the next time you get pissed at an Apple fanboy, remember; Steve Jobs is the new Jesus.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:54:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
efie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:31:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why did you just repost the top comment in this thread
Not really mindblowing, but something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Why is being born wealthy considered by so many people to be an unfair advantage? It's obvious that some people are born smarter or more athletic, and even though you have to work to develop these traits, some people are just going to be more successful academically or athletically. I've never really seen people call that unfair (I'm sure someone has but not nearly as much as people call wealth unfair). So why is wealth different? It seems to me that it's just another circumstance of birth. The only difference is that it's something that can be physically taken away.
The basic model for computation is the Turing machine, and the model for the turing machine was discovered independently by three different mathematicians at once. The models of computing we're functionally equivelent, in the sense that one person discovered a+b=c and another person discovered a=c-b.
A Turing machine is the bare minimum needed to simulate another Turing machine within it. If this is possible, a system is called Turing complete. For example, you can create a fully functional calculator or computer within Minecraft - Minecraft is Turing complete.
The universe is Turing complete.
Is the most basic model of how the universe operates a turing machine?
What I mean by this is two things: you believe that the course of action that you take in any given decision is the best (despite misgivings), and in the long term, you plan for eventualities as if they are certainties rather than probabilities. And thatโs great, its how it has worked for everyone. Whatโs fascinating is that this seems to be the only way it works.
Well, kinda. You see, if youโre self aware enough, acknowledge this, and try to be honest with yourself, youโre not going to live a life for long. Simply put, youโre a downright evil individual who has screwed up most of their life, and canโt honestly expect to fulfill all those dreams you have.
If your first thought was violent indignation and/or attempts to prove your worth, you missed the operative phrase in the above paragraph: self aware. Speaking from a mathematical standpoint, your existence has wasted enough energy to total at least two more people (making your existence evil, as a moral person would therefore not desire to live). As for being a screw up, failing at something is one of the first steps to getting good enough to succeed at it, and we illogically pursue this success despite all the failures along the way providing proof that we canโt do it.
But none of that matters if you arenโt self aware. And if you are and know these things, you have to actively lie to yourself. If you arenโt, or you havenโt thought of these things, you can just blissfully do as you always have done.
Its a fascinating conundrum where youโre better off not knowing.
The diagonal argument shows that the set of real numbers is "bigger" than the set of natural numbers (and therefore, the integers and rationals as well).
from your source.
but TIL that this view is actually not as universal as i thought. thank you.
could you reframe why you believe that cantors diagonal argument shows that the number of uneven integers and integers are equal?
because either it doesn't or i'm dramatically misreading this proof and make myself look stupid by insisting on my point, and i'd really like to know which one it is.
The fundamental idea that there is no "good" or "bad". That what we consider good is just a part of a socioeconomic dilemma.
That we basically use "morality" in order to make our lives easier, but in fact, nothing really matters in the grand scheme of things.
So what we are taught the "right point of view, or the more moralistic" is just basically bullshit. It just allows for a checks and balances in a system that is arbitrary.
I still think there is a right and wrong, but if you break it down it just has to do with someones personal comfort or there adaptation unto a larger society, but ultimately is has very little to do with what makes a society better.
Redarcs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:32:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If we are truly alive, then we can fundamentally alter reality at a quantum level with just our thoughts.
pbj986 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:18:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Essentially that the only way an Omnipotent God could challenge himself is by destroying himself. This is the only thing omnipotence would not be able to know.
I wouldnโt say the most mind blowing, but what has my attention right now. Foucaultโs theories on how in the 20th and now 21st century that control of others came from punishment of the body and has evolved to mental punishment and studies prison systems where torture has evolved to surveillance and solitary confinement.
Arguably, a free person is being disciplined and punished for having free thoughts because they are being socially, mentally, and sometimes medically shamed. He was homosexual so thatโs the classic example of how homosexuality was stigmatized and punished when it is a product of nature but categorized as a mental illness even to the present day in some countries.
We can apply that theory to modern day feminism as women are made out to be hysterical for suggesting there is workplace discrimination and a pay gap. Also to civil rights as taking a knee or marching for black lives is actively stigmatized by the president himself. And if we are ever so bold to insist against the status quo were obviously mentally ill.
Would not even be remotely surprised if I get downvoted for giving blm and feminism credence because that social stigma is what itโs all about.
Teraus ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:48:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Would not even be remotely surprised if I get downvoted for giving blm and feminism credence because that social stigma is what itโs all about."
Basically, "if people disagree with me, they prove I'm right"? Maybe you're just wrong and your worldview doesn't apply to reality. It is convenient to adopt an ideology that tells you you're a victim, because that allows you to demand reparations.
And if women come out by the thousands to march for ourselves, self-advocate, and have the courage to litigate sexual discrimination and assault cases in the face of systemic sexism that dismisses our qualms, I wouldnโt call that โvictimization.โ
The level of value that all of humanity places on money/gold as a whole. what is truely mindblowing is that money and/or gold is worth nothing but society tells you (by force) that it is.
What money really represents is the value of our time. Our lives are finite. We created money as a tangible means of expressing the value that we place on that particular portion of any given person's lifetime. We're really buying and selling each other's lives.
But you're right in your premise as well. It blows my mind how the whole financial system is just this vast pool of mental bullshit, held in place and sustained by faith and unicorn farts.
That is what it has boiled down to based on this value system. However what if we could change the value system. For example valuing relationships or even valuing the perpetuation of humanity (like in StarTrek); where we do things in oder to receive a different return on investment. That is what I mean when I say gold is worthless. "It is how we have always done things" and we are creatures of habit....
Gold actually does have some intrinsic value, but fiat currency does not. It doesn't really change your argument, except that gold should not be included.
Well, I would quibble that society does not tell you by force that money has value, it has value because it is agreed the value exists (the fiat). You might argue different kinds of coercion as the origin of the agreement, but it is also easily argued that any and all interaction is coercion on some level.
I included gold because, historically, that was traded as money and is the basis of paper money. However, during my shower thoughts, I think about how differernt things could be if our society worked for itself and not for money. business and people only do things for the sake of gain and thus abtaining higher status or expensive objects. What if we did things on a selfless scale rather than a self-centered scale? How would society be different... (thanks for your comments!)
I had a friend pose this to me which gave me pause for thought:
"do you think that misogyny exists, at least, partly because men have been in the driver's seat of civilization since time immemorial. (barring the notable exceptions of the past who became female rulers and leaders) And while women have influenced men of the past, only in the last few centuries have women begun to receive widespread respect and rights akin to that of a man at birth. So modern women find themselves operating in a world that was established and founded by men and, subconsciously, for men. And men have maligned women for not operating as seamlessly in this world as men and used this reason to bolster misogyny and sexism"
I can't say I agree or disagree because I'm not versed enough in a variety of subjects to make that judgement. But it did make me think.
I know this is rather mundane, but look around. Almost all of you are completely sorrounded by human made things. But not just made by us, designed, marketted, manufactured, shipped, and sold, etc... A long process. Everything around you was the result of countless hours of at minimum one, and typically thousands of people's time. Even if you have a plant in your house, even if it's a cut of a natural plant, you spent time doing that, growing it, and etc. We are literally sorrounded by our products.
That the goal of evolution is us; nature become self aware. The short of it is that obviously everything around you is nature. Nature is the entire universe and everything it encompasses, including all life forms. The fact that we are a concious life form means that we are a self aware part of nature. I forgot who's philosophy this is but I learned it in an environmental philosophy course. Very interesting stuff.
Kunphen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:33:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Probably that we don't ever experience the physical world. We only experience or senses which takes place within yourself and we just assume that or senses are an accurate portrayal of reality. We can't describe any physical objects without explaining how our senses interacted with reality. We have no evidence the physical world exists.
So I believe that time is infinite. This would mean that there is a good possibility that I am not the first me, nor the last me, that has or will ever exist. At some point in the past there has possibly been a world that had all of history of this Earth with all of the same chemical reactions that have occurred over time in order for the person who I identify as to exist. There was a timeline where I was a multi-millionare and a timeline when I was a homeless orphan, and everything in between. This may have happened and may continue to happen for the rest of eternity over and over again.
Kind of a mathematician one, but put simply, there is no such this as perfection. What we perceive as perfection will always be imperfect in a microscopic way, hell, smaller than that even. And with that, the slightest change, even if it looks like you did nothing, is way bigger when scaled down to the smaller-than-microscopic world
TL;DR literally nothing is perfect and the smallest physical changes to you or your surroundings can be the biggest thing in an infinitely smaller space
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:31:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No matter how alone you feel, it will never be as lonely as a true solipsist.
Some call nihilism "intellectually lazy", but I think it's actually very hard to comprehend and could potentially be compared to Buddhism.
It's one thing to believe that nothing in life has meaning, but I don't think it's possible within the human experience to not actively attach meaning to things.
CritzD ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:38:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Vacuum Metastability Event
A horrifying scientific theory that a lot of scientists support, and Heres how it goes.
Our universe could exist in a much larger universe, and if it is disturbed or something happens to it within that universe it could cause our universe to absorb into the bigger one, obliterating everything in ours.
Hereโs one way to think about it. A fish bowl is sitting on a shelf. It is very prone to falling off, so if a cat judges against it, it could fall and everything in it would splash and fall everywhere.
The worst part is that there is a 50/50 chance of this theory being correct.
I wouldnโt say I โknowโ but something I โlikeโ the idea of is this:
If the universe expands/contracts forever, as in, for infinity, then by rule of infinity (like the monkey/typewriter analogy) eventually, the same order of atoms will undoubtedly repeat. As in the universe will go through a near infinite amount of combinations until returning to the same state it is in now.
So to take it further, whether you believe in a God or not, when you die, for an indescribable amount of time, you are dead as a can of spam. There is no consciousness, no awareness, nothing, but then, because the order of atoms will eventually repeat, you will be reborn. Every single event in human history will play out exactly the same because every single atom will repeat its process, and you will also repeat your life again. Rinse, repeat.
I find it comforting and disheartening at the same time.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:44:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In Hebrew, we have a word for blue, and a word specifically for bright blue. When I look at most colour spectrums, I see 2 distinct blues.
I recently managed to fully grasp that that's not universal, and I can't imagine a blue less. A song (from South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut) references the sky being ocean blue, and I just can't with that.
The way the language you speak shapes your preception just fucking hurts
Kiotw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:21:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd say Nietzsche with the eternal return. It blew my mind when i learned about it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:23:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:05:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not how infinity works.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:38:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:48:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Infinity. Definitely not "infinite percent", though. There are infinite natural numbers, and only 50% of them are even.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:52:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Teraus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:26:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No. There are different sizes/types of infinity.
For example: there are infinite real numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite rational numbers between 0 and 1, however, it is possible to order these rational numbers (countable infinity), while it is impossible to order all real numbers.
There are infinite natural numbers, but there are infinitely more real numbers, and so on.
The universe can have an infinite amount of stars, and still have a finite amount of objects of a certain type. It doesn't have to account for every possibility in order to be infinite. Example: the number 0.12345555555.... (it has an infinite amount of 5, and a finite amount of 1, 2, 3 and 4)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:33:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Technophilosophy of Simondon
Simondon believes technology is just another force of nature who's potentiality is being restricted by humans.
Special relativity tells us that only light is constant and than even simultaneous events occur differently from every perspective. It really makes you question how real everything we see is, considering things like how much mass something has is dependent on how we look at it.
It probably has a distinct philosophical label, but I don't know it.
Here is something I think is really, practicably useful for anyone reading this comment. Understand now that what you are reading is merely symbols, not anything with inherent meaning. These symbols are merely a medium, as if water that carries a boat. The water is not a boat, the words are not meaningful. But by using these symbols I can communicate the intangible meaning of my message to you, if you possess the ability to decode my symbols and decipher the meaning within.
Why is this important you ask? Because SO MUCH of the world, especially politics, hinges on the "specific definition" of words used by people to communicate. We must always be conscious of the fact that our words can be interpreted in ways which we don't mean, especially if we insist that certain words "should" mean a certain thing. That is not to say word definitions are irrelevant, because they do provide common context, but we should always be conscious of the fact that miscommunication occurs due to using words with the assumption that people will interpret those words "correctly."
It's why so much of the political sphere consists of people talking "past" each other, because they insist on using words (buzzwords) without clarifying their meaning and without a common understanding of what those words mean when used.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:51:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not certain this qualifies but when i was young i always thought:
"How far does the universe go and whats at the end?... also whats on the other side?"
When Two Chainz said, โshe got a big booty so I call her big bootyโ did he give her the nickname, โBig Bootyโ or does he intend to call her big booty with his cell phone?
I love these types of concepts a ton. The notion of forever is wild
elbapo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:32:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
unsure if qualifies but - the past no longer exists except for our imaginary recollection of it. The future doesnt yet exist except for our imaginings of it. The present is by its nature the illusory boundary between the one and the other and doesnt exist either. Existence is therefore an illusion of our imaginations.
Truth. Anything and everything we take to be a fact. This is the total extent of it. What you think is true is logically dependent on this premise. Which, you might notice, is circular. This is where analytic philosophy ends. There is nothing beyond it.
02745 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:40:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That you can't establish good or bad, right or wrong parameters until you define an objective for it.
I think a common assumed one might be well being/pleasure/no displeasure/happiness.
I think it sounds fairly simple but if you revise your actions under it you might find yourself with a thinking emoji.
Free will in the conventional sense as people seem to understand it doesn't really exist.
Sam Harris does a lecture and wrote a short book on this that are pretty compelling and really bummed me out when I first watched/ read them.
Basically, everything that's happened since the beginning of time has been a causal chain of events that could not have happened any other way in the present universe. He presents this idea from a number of perspectives but an example is, on a molecular/ atomic level, matter and energy are acting on one another causing matter and energy affected to behave in an observable, feasibly predictable way. The initial conditions of all matter and energy are determined by conditions that preceded the current conditions. At a base level you are just matter, thus your memories, personality, emotions etc are just a physical state that exists because of previous conditions - you can track this back to the beginning of your life. All that you are is forces external to yourself acting upon you. All the good and terrible things you've ever done were really on a logical level out of your control because based on the initial conditions of the universe, everything that has happened was bound to happen anyways.
Okay but as beings existing in a post big bang universe the idea stands. He has a reply to the implications of quantum physics as well. I'd reccomend watching his lecture, it's about an hour long and he covers much more and explains much better than I do, I'm not really well versed in philosophy and have only taken a few courses. I'll see if I can find a link.
It's been about a year or so since I've watched it but I'm fairly certain this is the one I watched where he addresses how free will is an illusion from a scientific, biological, and perspective of logic and reason and then goes on to address objections including quantum physics. It's a good watch!
The next animal with the highest level of consciousness under humans are chimps. The smartest chimps can stack blocks or learn rudimentary sign language at best. The step up to the smartest humans is astrophysicists, mathematicians and geniusโs.
There is a 2% difference in DNA between chimps and humans. If the level of consciousness jumps that much from chimps to humans, and itโs only a 2% difference, then perhaps thatโs 2% is just as small as the percentage sounds. Perhaps that 2% is just an addition of a fraction of brain power, thatโs amounts to a lot in the real world.
Based on this, us humans at our level of consciousness are unable to inter-dimensionally travel, travel through space or communicate with other life. So if aliens were to visit us, they would have to have the brain power to discover how to do these tasks.
If aliens that visited us had only a 2% difference in brain DNA, they would look at us like useless chimps that donโt even know where they are. Aliens with just a 2% difference in DNA could enslave the people of our entire world and we wouldnโt even know it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:43:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:59:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Could u please elaborate?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:21:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am trying to figure this out as well - what I got from it is maybe that love is only ever truly "love" when it is a choice made under no obligations, uninfluenced by things like fear, responsibility, need, etc.
So maybe only someone whose mind is free of those pressures can ever experience what love is truly and fully?
There is no such thing as the present. Everything is either the near future or the recent past.
roswo45 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:05:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โIf the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.โ - Clive Staples Lewis
For me it's the idea of philosophical zombies. That some people might not be conscious, and we would never know. They just behave and speak as if they were. Spooky...
I'm torn between answering your question and using your question as the answer. I can't decide among all the not-your-question-answers, and that blows my fucking mind. Damn it, you recursive bastard!
No one wants to think that they don't actually have free will. But when you consider it, it doesn't seem like we actually do.
The thought is based off the laws of cause and effect. As far as we can tell, everything that happens is the result of some sort of cause. An apple falls off a tree - the limb had become weak enough that it could no longer sustain the weight of the apple, due to regular agitation from the wind, etc. etc. etc.
So now imagine the choices of humans - I chose to buy a new car because my old one was falling apart. Because of my shitty old car, I started looking at the market, and once I found one that fit my price range and standards, I "decided" to buy it. But that decision was a reaction to all the variables that lead me to seek a new car. So was it me that made this choice, or was it the most effective reaction to the numerous variables that lead me to this place?
The problem with free will, when you consider what is a hard to disprove notion of cause and effect, is that in order for a choice to be "free," it has to have essentially come from nothing. If something is a result of the gazillion variables that preceded it, it is in fact just that - a result - not free, determined. If it does not exist within the notion of cause and effect, where did it come from? That is where the idea of a "free agent" comes in. Something that does not require a cause, yet simply exists autonomously. So if you want free will, somewhere in the human mind is this "free agent." But when you think about all kinds of different concepts in psychology and philosophy, It's hard to find that "free agent." We are formed by the very environment we exist in. Everything we think, do, say, etc., was the effect of some preceding event.
So what's the weird part of this? Although it feels like we are making choices, logically speaking, it's incredibly tough to dispel the idea that these choices are simply the the result of a conjoining path that's been happening through the entire history of.. everything.
So this wanders into metaphysics. Let's say you really want to believe that we have free will, you're gonna have to go ahead and believe that we have a soul which is not subject to the logical laws of the universe that we perceive, therefor, not subject to the laws of cause and effect, can act as a free agent, and is therefor a source of "free will." So holiness, for some, may be a satisfying answer for this. But, in my opinion, the scientist does not yet have an answer that proves we truly have free will.
That said, I hate that, because I like to think I'm in charge of my life.
Chew on that, guys, and offer me any dissenting opinions you find.
*edit: I'd like to add: if any of you poor souls are actually still reading this - I am currently in a battle at my work and in my life that relies heavily on self determination and choice. I'm painfully determined to bring a sense of accountability to some elements of management at my work. And I'm not lost on the irony that I don't, philosophically, believe in free will, yet the root of the issue I find myself in is self determination, "mastering of your own ship," if you will. But one way I've thought to conjoin these conflicting philosophies, is that perhaps I was destined to be a purveyor of relative self determination.
Or I'll die of excessive masturbation next week. Who knows.
ajv0109 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:15:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That having a child is not a morally good act, or to be precise a purely selfish act. There are many reasons, a simple one is - a person will experience both good things and suffering in his life. If that person is never born, then he will not suffer. Also, no one misses out on the happiness he might have had, since he was never born in the first place.
Hence the decision to have a child cannot be for its own sake, as it hasn't been created yet. So it's a purely selfish decision.
When you have a child, you're not only creating a cute baby, but also the depressed 70 year old who has seen his parents and friends die and has a 40% chance (in the USA) of having cancer and being in agony. So people should think more before blindly creating new humans in this messed up world.
Teraus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:55:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I, for one, am grateful for my existence, and wouldn't want to lose it based on the possibility that some people can become unhappy.
I think you didn't understand what I was trying to say. It's not about "some people".
There's no question of you "losing" your existence, as that is very different from not having been born in the first place, which is what I'm talking about.
If you had never been born, there would be no "you" to miss out on whatever is making you grateful to be alive.
Why create a conscious being who can (and will most definitely) suffer? Who misses out if you don't? If it's only you, then it is a purely selfish act. I hope I have made myself more clear than before.
Time exists only on earth? I think what you mean to say is that men decided how we measure time. Time is universal and definitely exists everywhere, although not consistent everywhere from our perspective. Time is actually a property of matter, since massless particles experience no time.
duderos ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 19:27:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
dsds548 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 16:14:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's what traps us here. Without the constraint of time, we could travel anywhere in the universe and possibly meet other intelligent life. Our instruments are all susceptible to time just like we are.
That both doesn't answer OPs question and is wrong to the best of our medical and psychological knowledge.
Byizo ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 15:45:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You cannot overtake an opponent in a race so long as both racers are still moving.
Let's say you are in a race with a slower racer. They get a 3 second head start to get a lead on you. As soon as you start you must close the distance between the two of you, thus reaching the point your opponent is currently at. In the time it takes you to reach this point, regardless of how quickly you do so, your opponent has moved somewhat farther ahead. You must then reach the next point on which your opponent is located, thus giving them time to reach a further point ahead of that. This can go on infinitely while all you can do is steadily close the distance, but never actually overtake your opponent.
Of course we know that's not how a race works, but philosophically it makes sense.
Edit: I get that's not how it really works. What I'm saying is that the relationship between the two racers in this thought experiment should be asymptotic. I understand physics. I took several courses in college. I can map out the racer's acceleration, drag, even find the friction coefficient between their feet and the ground to determine whether a slip will occur at a particular force produced by their leg parallel with the ground and tell you within a fairly small margin when one racer will overtake the other.
I thought it was an interesting thought, not a viable physical principle.
toadsuck ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 17:34:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Zeno's Paradox?
This is the problem in Zeno's (5th century BC) Paradox where Achilles
and the tortoise had a race. Achilles could run ten times as fast as
the tortoise, but the tortoise had a hundred yard start.
Achilles runs the hundred yards, but the tortoise is now 10 yards
ahead.
Achilles runs the 10 yards, but the tortoise is now 1 yard ahead.
Achilles runs the yard, but the tortoise is now 1/10 yard ahead.
Achilles runs the 1/10th yard, but the tortoise is now 1/100 yard
ahead, and so on.
Zeno's question to his colleagues (which they were unable to settle
satisfactorily) was how can Achilles overtake the tortoise?
In our enlightened times we are able to resolve this problem because
we have the concept of the limit of an infinite series. It is easy to
show that
So however many fractions (or decimal places) you continue the
calculation, its value cannot exceed 111 and 1/9 yard. This is where
Achilles overtakes the tortoise, and there is no paradox or
contradiction. The ancient Greeks did not have our ideas about
limits, so in their logic the problem could not be solved.
Zeno's Paradox, and it only works if you don't use the right type of math. Try building a building with just addition and subtraction, you're not going to be able to do it. That doesn't make architecture a paradox.
Since we know that it isn't how a race works in the real world, it has already been shown to make no sense mathematically or philosophically. If an idea directly contradicts the real world, it doesn't mean that the real world is wrong, but that the idea is wrong. Even before we discovered the math which is able to disprove it, it should've been clear that there was something fundamentally wrong with the idea itself...
Unless youโre referring to the process of halving the distance between you and your opponent (ie their location at a specific point in time)... because that would actually go on forever into infinity.
Doesn't take into an account how first there both moving. I could easily overtake a 3 year old in a race with a headstart even if he or she continues to move.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:35:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is a difference between truth and fact.
Fact is something that you can prove and itโs always like that.
Truth is something you believe to be true.
Novvoy ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:50:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's possible to be an American listening to a native Chinese person speak English in an Irish accent... That blows my mind. Also, being an English speaker and listening to Russian with a Spanish accent or Indian accent. It's just something you never really consider until you've heard it, then it's like... shit. That can happen?
I would say the double slit experiment, where the result is dependent on whether the experiment is being observed or not. Yes I know it is considered to be a topic of quantum mechanics, but the philosophical implications are immense!
The most mindblowing thing Iโve ever encountered in philosophy is this present day tendacy to view the concept of God as being some sort of superstitious belief system, when scripture in its original form and language it is all mathematics, and far more sophisticated mathematics than anything floating around today. They talk in depth about genetics in a way far more rigorous, thorough, and illuminating than the modern day company line ideation of genetics.
The modern day โatheistโ movement is fever dream anti-semitism and the spiritual ancestor of the nazi regime, and it sprung out of seemingly nowhere immediately after World War II.
The funny thing is that they are not atheists. They are the same substance as teeth chattering โchristiansโ.
Ps - atheism is not the same thing as areligious. Being anti-religion is not atheism, either. Even the bible is anti-religion... Anyone who believes in a primordial higher power of mathematical value is not an atheist. Anyone who believes in some vague sort of โhigher powerโ is not an atheist. Whenever Hawking talked about pursuing to know the mind of God, and later said he was just talking metaphorically, he was only showing his profound ignorance of what the term metaphor actually means. Sorry Americans, you donโt get to steal words from ancient languages that are spectacularly more emotionally and mathematically dense, sophisticated, and advanced than pathetic late stage industrialist white American English and then use them completely wrong and then when corrected just say โwell... that doesnโt matter now because words take on the meaning of their current day usage!โ... get that pathetic shit out of here. Some languages are based on higher orders of mathematical magnitude and possess eternity within them... not all languages are focused on licking the assholes of the lowest common denominator.
In other words, if some self-declared atheist says that they are a human being,.. but then says that they donโt believe in souls, well it doesnโt matter because the term human being literally means a vital unit of existence that is a soul. If you identify as a human being then you believe you have a soul. Period. The term believe is very misrepresented as well. In ancient mathematics and language, Belief is much more akin to not being able to wash blood off oneโs hands no matter how hard they scrub than any hackneyed whitewashed concept of โbelieving something with no evidence!โ ... rolls eyes
The Bible shouldโve never been written down. It is too esoteric and complex of a mathematical system. It can only be properly transmuted through transubstantiation, not by deduction. AKA.. it needs human brains to directly express it using the full capacities of their dynamic, present selfs and cannot be trusted to sit on stagnant, blank pages in words subject to rampant imperialist unthinking mistranslation and for it to not be catastrophically misunderstood by foreign countries and cultures.
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
How the fuck is this the same as having a soul? I know that I'm smarter than a dog, I can speak articulately, and I can stand upright; yet, I don't have a soul.
Hey pedanticplatypodes, stop being so incredibly stupid. Look at at origin of the word human being... where it comes from. Look up the original Hebrew meaning. That stupid fucking englishized meaning you have is not worth a slice of shit covered toilet paper.
Itโs not even hard, look up itโs fucking origin. But you wonโt... because it is associated with Jews.. so you donโt give a fuck because you are anti-Semitic.
To the dumbass who said Stephen hawking isnโt American... learn how to read... nothing about what I said meant that he was American... use your brain next time.
I am not taking anything. This is called looking at reality and not projecting 21st century late stage industrialist nazi propaganda upon it. I know that as an anti-Semite you think I should take a break from existing, but youโve got no power and lack the sentience required to comprehend that it is not all about your comfort zone of 21st century dogma and that it is about existence, and the very nature of existence is far more sophisticated than any silly and adolescent dichotomy of โexistence and non existenceโ..
Iโm not a troll you dumb asshole. The cultures of human past had intelligence too, and much longer attention spans, and took things much more seriously and were not brainwashed by a dogmatic societally enforced false idol worship of LCD, โlowest common denominatability.โ I am not even saying anything outrageous, you are just so out of touch with the potentiality of the world around you that you think math is an abstract concept and pretty much everything except your own corporeal LCD exposure to reality is an abstract concept.
Just go lick Caesarโs asshole... it is what bootlickers like you are destined to do until death does its part.
satanicpuppy ยท 3283 points ยท Posted at 13:32:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Linguistically, its possible for two people to have a conversation that each believes to be meaningful, which actually has no meaning because one or both of them don't know what they're talking about.
BlazingFox ยท 654 points ยท Posted at 17:06:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What would an example look like?
nagol93 ยท 2454 points ยท Posted at 17:28:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
90% of office meetings are like that.
Meior ยท 143 points ยท Posted at 21:03:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was just about to say. Sounds like most office meetings.
Smitten_the_Kitten ยท 110 points ยท Posted at 21:14:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Especially the one I just had.
I already finished writing your content! If you looked, you'd have known and we wouldn't be having this meeting for you to change things. Grawr!
[deleted] ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:48:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hello? Hello, anybody home? Huh? Think, Kitten, think! You've still gotta retype everything up! Do you realize what would happen if I handed in my content with your code base? I'll get fired! You wouldn't want that to happen, would ya?
WOULD YA?!
kooshipuff ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:17:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I read this in the turtle-dude's voice from Bojack Horseman. No idea why.
amir13479 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:14:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Great BttD reference
Khourieat ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 21:06:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have a mental award for meetings that should've been e-mails.
I wish I could share them with the attendants, but I believe this would generally be seen as a dick move.
nik282000 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 22:06:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-Pointy Haired Boss, probably
CarmelaMachiato ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:28:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah man, no bodies leaving the cave with you.
vergushik ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:45:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have visions on putting a nail through my head 90% of the time
cagedbudmonkey ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:09:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
IT'S LIKE YOU'RE ME!
Inquisitive_idiot ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:33:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
steve20009 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:11:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Welp, now I know why nothing ever gets done around here.
just_some_guy65 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:17:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Another vote for office meetings
Scafell1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:09:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Office meetings are exactly like this, everyone walks there prepared to talk but no one understands's each other.
virgosdoitbetter ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:26:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We need to have a meeting about the meeting first.
nagol93 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:36:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It has come to my attention that we are having too many meetings around here. If made chairmen I will assemble a team of highly skilled individuates. Hold an assembly with every Tuesday and Thursday to discuss cutting back on the excess of meetings. My goal is to increase productivity and synergy in the office.
Aperture_T ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:34:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or on TV, when they have actors try to talk about science or technology. It raises my blood pressure.
Flater420 ยท 554 points ยท Posted at 21:19:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's been 12 years, I don't have the exact messages anymore. But a friend and I had a conversation over text. One of those conversations with 5-20 minutes between each reply but lasts all night.
Apparently, the telecom network was all kinds of fucked up and was delaying most messages and then sending them out at an random point in the near future.
We didn't know of the issues at the time, but because the other wouldn't respond after a while (since they never got the message or their reply was not sent), we ended up aending a second text on a different topic. I remember that I changed the subject at one point because I thought I had annoyed my friend when he didn't reply, and iirc he did something similar the same night.
I remember the conversation being incredibly weird. He was responding in ways that he usually didn't. But he was being coherent, just not his usual self.
When we met up a day later, we compared phones. We had both received all messages, but in a different order. The conversations were completely different. Somehow, both of our (jumbled) replies had made sense to what the other person was talking about.
One thing I remember is that I was joking about how I'd prevent him from dating my current crush (which he had unintentionally done in the past with a previous crush). He responded with "Sorry, (name) just walked into the bedroom and kept me occupied for a long time". The name he used was that of my current (second) crush. I assumed he was making a stupid joke and replied with a joking provoking behavior (e.g. you wanna take this outside motherfucker?) But he was actually referring to his girlfriend's mother, who had the same first name. I knew that, but hadn't thought about it because it made more sense that he was talking about my crush since that was what I was talking about.
The conversation was littered with those types of out of context messages that took on a whole different meaning for the other person. When put in a different context, they ended up being a surprisingly reasonable sequitur (barring a few exceptions, which we discarded as not understanding what the other had meant).
BlazingFox ยท 159 points ยท Posted at 21:23:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow. It's crazy to think that a friendship or relationship might get destroyed if a serious misunderstanding were to result from that.
Flater420 ยท 131 points ยท Posted at 21:31:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It almost did. I remember getting massively offended at one point (not the thing I mentioned earlier, which was with a joking context) and opened the conversation the next day by asking him to explain himself. That's how we got the ball rolling.
Though we were close enough to not let it ruin our friendship, I'm still glad that we had our phones to prove what we had understood differently.
gurnard ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 02:06:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One day my (ex)girlfriend received a text from me out of the blue, saying
On a day we didn't have plans together.
You can imagine how she'd read that. Lucky she forwarded it to me to rub in my face before cutting off all contact. I remembered typing it too. To her, regarding blowing off a non-plan with a mutual friend, three weeks earlier.
gavmo ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:35:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
honestly you probably don't wanna be in a committed relationship with someone who cuts off all contact based on a text message with no context...
gurnard ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:01:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I hear that.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:49:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait up, this is what caused the break-up?
gurnard ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:38:17 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah that was a few months into a three or four year relationship. She cooled down, I showed her my sent messages that put it into context and everything was fine.
Still a lot of dang raised blood pressure by a little electronic malfunction with a dark sense of humour, which is the point.
StupidImbecileSlayer ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:42:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Perfect vid for what you're saying lol https://youtu.be/naleynXS7yo
CURRYBLOCKEDBYJAMES ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:20:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like every single Rom Com ever
ElectroPositive ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:23:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's almost like that would make for a funny video
Chamale ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:03:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This sounds like the Key and Peele sketch Text Message Confusion.
gavmo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:38:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
those guys are geniuses
supermr34 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:02:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this was my favorite thing on reddit today. if i could afford it, i would gift you some gold. but i canโt. so bye.
oceanman97 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:26:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There was a Key and Peele skit just like this where they sent the same texts but one interpreted it completely different than the other
lollypopsandrainbows ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:08:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That would have taken a long time to unscramble!
Aperture_T ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:37:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was making weekend plans with a friend not long ago, and she sent three texts with little delay, but they arrived in reverse order. Fortunately, this only resulted in me being super confused, and in fact prevented me from walking into her April fools joke.
Mr-Marshmallow ยท 86 points ยท Posted at 17:55:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Any Reddit thread.
Gavroche15 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:59:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every Reddit thread.
CodeMonkey24 ยท 266 points ยท Posted at 17:33:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/r/politics
madstersm ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:38:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even as a person who usually falls on the left side of the spectrum, that subreddit makes me want to die
TheThingsUnsaid ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:06:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unfortunately accurate
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:51:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I laughed
Kahzgul ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 19:39:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
reddit.com
StockAL3Xj ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 21:01:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a perfect example of where I would like to have an actual answer but because everyone on reddit likes to give useless, unfunny responses we won't get one.
Flater420 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:33:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I gave a genuine answer. Check the sibling comment to yours :)
Sirpotatoix ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:50:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Google Wittgenstein's Beetle
broscar_wilde ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 20:30:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Modern Family does this really well. Arrested Development, too?
Incontinentiabutts ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:02:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Japanese or Chinese room.
Two people are separated by a wall. There is a slit in the wall where person A puts a card with Chinese symbols in a slot. Person B picks upbthe card and then consults a guidebook which tells them which Chinese symbol to respond with. Person B has no idea what they are responding with. But person A can reasonably assume that they're having and intelligent conversation. However, if person A is also only passing in the symbols that they have been told to pass on then despite the fact that the communication between the two makes sense, neither of the participants have any idea what they are talking about.
Steel_Leaf_Champion ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:07:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Waiting for Gadot
commit_bat ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:40:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Denmark?
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:44:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Kamelรฅsรฅ?
Allupual ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:46:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I just commented this so I didnโt wanna post it all again
And yeah for the record it wasnโt in our main language. Nor was it a deep and meaningful conversation but hey itโs an example I guess
raskoln1kov ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:11:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just listen to two drunk people have a serious discussion
CookyConrad ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:33:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The panel of "experts" on FOX News
Prejudiced_Heart ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:33:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My one extremist Christian uncle debating with my other uncle who believes aliens were the gods in scripture
seandkiller ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:11:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This one.
BASEDME7O ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 17:32:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Trump and Kim jung unโs future meeting
MINIMAN10001 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:42:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean even if the meeting itself was non productive simply having both sides leaving believing they had a meaningful conversation would be a diplomatic win.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:37:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reddit
banksy_jarrod ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:57:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Politics
Equalitythis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:49:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That one episode of The office where Kevin is talking about cookies to their massively philosophical boss (forget his name)
heat153 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:30:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Robert California
Hackrid ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:57:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The above discussion about consciousness.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:40:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did fake news mean fake reporting or reporting on something not newsworthy? Often argued but people usually mean two different things.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:48:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:58:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone knows when you make an assumption you make an ass out of you and mption.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:00:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:01:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Long Kiss Goodnight, Geena Davis and Sam Jackson. Check it out.
chiminage ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:50:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reddit
ThePrompting ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:24:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
watch the white Christmas episode of black mirror. I guy is flirting with a girl and talks about overcoming anxiety and "turning off the voices in your head" She takes it quite differently
KingSix_o_Things ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:10:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The t_d
dorsia_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:38:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
LSD conversations man
_PukyLover_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:04:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The online trainings the major corporation I work for requires me to complete, !
runasaur ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:11:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
a simple one:
My wife works at a distribution center. She has about a dozen acronyms for stuff they do, scan packages, route them, fix them, audit the vans, etc. Most things have a funky acronym attached to it.
Some days she'll walk in excited or upset about how X got his NDYI wrong and got a write up but since his NSI wasn't as bad he didn't get a HDFN so she had to talk to the manager before the BWEQ was submitted. (I'm making these letters up).
I then have a "deer in the headlights" look until she finishes and I try to repeat what she said, then we spend another 15-20 minutes with her explaining what each set of letters mean and why they're important. So we have a half hour conversation that was very emotionally important to her, but it was a wikipedia entry to me.
rokudaimehokage ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:48:53 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Most political debates.
[deleted] ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 21:03:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[insert a joke about things commonly considered to be annoying and/or meaningless discussions, or just silly]
But in all seriousness... could you elaborate? I'm interested in this one but I can't really wrap my head around it.
satanicpuppy ยท 172 points ยท Posted at 21:26:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Take a stupid word like โblueโ. You think it means the color, another dude thinks it means the texture of corduroy. Maybe heโs blind, doesnโt matter.
You say something like, โI love blue.โ
He says, โYea! Me too.โ
You say, โI wish I could get my whole room done in blue...โ
He says (imagining rolling around on it), โHoly crap! That would be awesome! I love the way it feels...โ
You (thinking heโs a little weird, but going with it), โYea, I love blue. I wear blue clothes whenever I can.โ
He says, โIโd like that, but it gets dirty really quickly.โ
And so on. Thatโs a super simple example. Imagine that playing out with something that most people donโt fully understand. Emotions, quantum physics, doesnโt matter.
How can you talk about something without really knowing what it is? Turns out humans do that almost without even thinking about it. Pretty weird.
Bad_Handyman ยท 178 points ยท Posted at 23:29:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I had this experience with my father when I was in my teens. The conversation went like this:
Me: "Hey, I saw a cardinal down by St. Paul's on my way home today."
Dad: "Wow! That's a rare sight! I wonder what he was doing there...?"
Me: I don't know, I haven't seen one in person before, so it really stood out. I wonder if that means they'll be coming here more often. They don't usually venture to this part of the country, so maybe he'll stick around."
Dad: "What was he doing?"
Me: "Singing, looking around. Not much."
Dad: "Singing? Where was he?"
Me: "Sitting in a tree."
Dad: "What...?"
I was talking about a bird, and he was talking about a Catholic Cardinal. English is tricky.
Randomd0g ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 10:54:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah no that one is your fault. If you're mentioning that you saw a Cardinal at A CATHEDRAL then it's fair game to assume you meant the religious kind not the feathery one.
aleafytree ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 07:21:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No two communicating people can ever come to a 'true understanding' because they are two different people. Maybe they can come really close due to similar biology, environments, and so on; but they will never be able to convey their conciousness in completeness because it would require the same exact perception and contextualization between the two parties. They would have to be the same person; One can only communicate with themselves in such an encompassing way.
Unmaking3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:12:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And even that gets tricky. At least with me it does. Delusion, numbness to situations, random thought tangents, and other stuff all lead to never really being 100% about anything concerning myself.
Unmaking3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:12:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And even that gets tricky. At least with me it does. Delusion, numbness to situations, random thought tangents, and other stuff all lead to never really being 100% about anything concerning myself.
acloudonthemoon ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:26:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this is hilarious
SashySativa ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:06:08 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sitting in the emergency room right now and this made me giggle out loud.... twice
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:23:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think one of the craziest aspects of concessiness is the fact that we can apply so many things to so many things. You can use a word to describe so many unrelated things. Doesn't always make perfect sense, but it's something that really shows the intelligence and awesomness of the human brain.
The fact that there is transcendent properties to so many things is quite amazing too.
ctrembs03 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:46:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's a scene in Arrested Development where George Michael is telling his aunt Lindsey about a teacher he has a crush on. However, Lindsey thinks he's talking about her as a mother figure, and offers herself to fill that role...while George Michael thinks his aunt just propositioned him and is deeply disturbed. Meanwhile, Lindsey is proud of herself for being a role model. Something like that?
brotacular11 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:43:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
thats similar to how someone can think green to them is blue to me. and whenever blue is talked about we see different colors but the conversation makes perfect sense
OgdruJahad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:50:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is why misunderstandings are so common, its very easy for our brains to misinterpret things, and make incorrect conclusions, also conspiracy theories!
rawbface ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:19:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Blue means the texture of corduroy? I always thought that "corduroy" meant the texture of corduroy. Since when do we describe textures as "blue"?
satanicpuppy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:01:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a gedankenexperiment. You're supposed to imagine that there is a guy who thinks that's what "blue" means.
HouseDownTheStreet ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 21:02:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Any conversation with my mother...
Allupual ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 21:45:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok no joke in my (high school) french class (4h) we had an entire conversation for a solid 10 minutes about les camions. Like we were in a circle doing fgroup discussions and the teacher would ask people questions if they werenโt raising their hands- stuff like โhave you ever jumped on un camion like Meursault did in the storyโ.
Near the end of the convo this one girl raises her hand and says โIโm so lost whatโs un camionโ And I said โa truckโ while another actively participating girl said โa camelโ. Sparked a debate, roughly half the class thought we were talking about camels bc when theyโd asked their friend sheโd said camel and that got passed from person to person. I laughed my ass off, it explained why that girl answered the above question w/ โno Iโve never been to Israelโ
For the record it does mean truck
Tommero ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:43:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So many places with camels, and she picks that.
Occhrome ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:14:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this reminds me of a real life incident wear a japanese doctor was communicating orders to a chinese nurse, both speaking in english which was their second language. long story short a patient died as a result.
I'm sure the doctor thought he was correctly communicating his orders and the the nurse thought she correctly repeated and understood the order.
GrislyDragon ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:54:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty much cocaine.
MiserableLurker ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:40:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This scene in "The Melancholy of Suzumiya Haruhi..."
uglysadboy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:20:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every "deep talk" I've had drunk
vtesterlwg ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:30:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
well yeah tbh i'd like to watch that
Trickysocials ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:32:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this Wittgenstein with his language-game-theory?
satanicpuppy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:56:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs a descendent if that, but yea.
Oberon_Swanson ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:37:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Related, it's also possible for a group of people to come to a consensus on voluntarily doing something none of them actually want to do.
salbris ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:01:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure this is why arguing with most people is futile 99% of the time.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:48:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Small talk. In a nutshell
BusinessDot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:48:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whoah
l3ane ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:09:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I work for a merchant service provider and this is my life.
Spacealienqueen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:55:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly I have a hard time imagining such a conversation taking place.
citrusmagician ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:30:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does that conversation have no meaning, or just two diffrrent meanings?
IAmNotAPerson6 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:54:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know how seriously implicature and Paul Grice's cooperative principle are taken in the academic world, but I think they're drastically important when just talking about stuff that's controversial, especially in political arguments.
Implicature is basically what's suggested by what you say, not just the exact words. Like you ask me to go to lunch tomorrow, I say I have to work, then you see me downtown the next day and you're pissed off, but I say I only had to work at night. I implied I couldn't go to lunch with you because I had to go to work. That was the implicature.
Nothing pisses me off more than, in political arguments, people saying they're "just stating facts" and leaving it at that. No, motherfucker, saying the sky is blue is stating a fact, but there's a reason you chose to say what you did over that. There was more to it than "just stating facts." Stuff like that is horseshit. Like when an implicit meaning is crystal clear but when you call someone out on it they accuse you of twisting what they're saying or putting words in their mouth or whatever.
Skyliner08 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:34:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds a bit like the Dunning-Kruger effect?
OgdruJahad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:47:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You just described my understanding of Deepak Chopra. Thanks.
Pingwinho ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:51:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That perfectly describes my 10 minute long conversation with my friend when we were coming down off MDMA. He had no idea what I was talking about. I had no idea what I was talking about as well. Same applied to him. Just words. But the emotion was real so we got along.
suffer-cait ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:35:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even if they both do know what they're talking about, they could have such different understandings of things (anything from simple word choice, to world view) that they're still both participating in two different conversations and conveying much less than they think. Or possibly, more than they realize.
CubicZircon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:06:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I vitelli dei romani sono belli
means, in Italian, โthe Romans' calves are beautifulโ
and in Latin, โGo, Vitellus, at the Roman gods' sound, to warโ.
(As a bonus, this kinds of sum up the difference between an Italian and a Roman).
KentKarma ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 08:03:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If both people believe it to be meaningful, then who decided it wasn't?
_darzy ยท 6121 points ยท Posted at 13:17:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Basically the hard problem of consciousness. If you are just a highly complex collection of physical matter, how does a first person point of awareness come into being? Why do we experience things from such a non tangible way while being made of tangible stuff?
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 2197 points ยท Posted at 13:26:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To add to this, consciousness is really the only thing we can always be sure of. If we are all just a "brain in a vat", at least consciousness is real. How nuts is that?
qwerty12qwerty ยท 1298 points ยท Posted at 16:13:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Optimistic nilhism
Regardless of if we are a brain in a vat, a simulation, or science project on an alien kids shelf he got a C- on:
What we experience is real so does anything really change?
[deleted] ยท 417 points ยท Posted at 17:38:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is interesting also in the context of virtual reality/Matrix-like consciousness. Lots of people might choose to live in alternative reality that is "happier" than a "real" reality outside a Matrix because it is still real to them.
say_or_do ยท 244 points ยท Posted at 19:36:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Try to read up on Plato's "allegory of the cave".
electrogeek8086 ยท 129 points ยท Posted at 20:09:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I did, and understood nothing of it :o
noobswag99 ยท 257 points ยท Posted at 20:45:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Basically you could be perceiving anything your mind can think of. You may just be in a cave staring at the wall, creating entire concepts of existence in your head. When you start to consider your thinking, you stop looking at the shadows on the wall and start looking at what causes the shadows. Maybe its the truth or maybe its all an illusion, who knows whats casting the shadows.
Seemoose227 ยท 214 points ยท Posted at 21:01:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
From what I understood, it was saying that we kind of just accept reality as it is presented to us, but once we leave the โcaveโ we can never really go back because we know it isnโt real.
lil-rap ยท 152 points ยท Posted at 22:19:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Plato was saying a lot of things when he wrote that chapter in The Republic, however his main point in the context of the rest of the book was to argue that philosophy is the highest order of reason in an ideal society. Philosophers are the ideal human, and everyone else should be beneath them in the social order because they are the ones who truely understand society. Many of Platoโs quotes are used incorrectly because they are taken out of context.
A very interesting aspect to his cave allegory is that when the enlightened escapee returns to free the others, they donโt want to be freed.
Kingbow13 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 23:29:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought the Allegory highlighted the difference between an object, and the idea of the object. We only see the shadows, not the actual truth of the object.
fplisadream ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:45:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's part of it. The shadows represent our perspective of objects whereas the things casting the shadows effectively reflect the "form of the thing"
lil-rap ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:42:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, but that would be a realizations that would differentiate a philosopher from a lower caste of person.
prikaz_da ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 05:15:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's one way of looking at it. Some people have argued that a text can stand alone and be interpreted without regard to the author's intentions, and that what you get out of it by doing so isn't necessarily "incorrect".
Demojen ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 01:36:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They don't want to be freed and they think he's insane.
lil-rap ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:40:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, they don't trust him. Really scary.
amishcatholic ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:52:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It was also very much an allegory of about education and why our minds resist learning despite its obvious benefits.
TyranoMike ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:17:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always get sort of annoyed when people basically think Plato was writing about the matrix.
Its an allegory. It even says so in the title!!!!! Lol
naza_el_sensual ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:22:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ow
coleosis1414 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:49:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Plato also didn't have everything figured out, either. He had interesting ideas, but he said a lot of crazy shit that doesn't hold up.
Plato asserted that knowledge didn't require evidence. In other words, experimentation was not necessary. One need only sit in a chair and think and they could eventually know all there is to know. Basically, assume your way to truth.
He was full of shit in that regard - obviously discovery of influences outside of yourself are necessary to broaden your base of knowledge. Everything else is just assumption.
lil-rap ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:48:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe it's simple-minded of me, but when I start to think Plato might be wrong or crazy, I assume that I am missing his point or misunderstanding his meaning. There are many metaphors, ideas seated deeply in historical or cultural contexts, and jokes included in Plato's writings that can make him sound like a nut sometimes. And to be honest, I don't think Plato of all people would think knowledge doesn't require evidence. I would argue the Socratic method is proof of that.
nacrastic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:04:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
way to dodge the other guy completely
lil-rap ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:17:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What? Who?
nacrastic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:19:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
huh?
Demojen ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:38:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For fuck sakes Plato. Stop Monty Pythoning people.
coleosis1414 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:07:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Socratic method is attributed to Socrates, not Plato.
And even the Socratic method doesnโt rely on evidence - just discussion. So itโs a group of people coming to a consensus on an assumption, rather than one person making that assumption themselves.
lil-rap ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:16:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Socrates never wrote anything, it was all written by Plato. You make a fair point about it though.
TFMain200 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:03:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
didnt he also suggest that all knowledge is just things we already knew, and we're really just recalling things?
khighle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:46:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this is what i came to say, but you did it better
Itsmaybelline ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:57:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
All this plato stuff feels obvious to me
Cabbage4998 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:50:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I agree. I thought higher of Plato and the allegory before I read the book and got proper context. You can still learn things from Plato, but a lot of what he says is kind of silly.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, it's only silly if you take it literally, which people usually don't.
Cabbage4998 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:25:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, it seems to me that Plato meant it very literally.
I'm aware that you can learn from him without taking every word as truth, if that's what you meant. There is a lot to learn. All I mean is that the Theory of Forms, which Plato supported most heavily in his allegory, is a bit silly.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:34:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hmm, I disagree that the Theory of Forms is silly, but you're right, I do think it was meant to be taken seriously. I meant more outlandish things like the three waves of reform in The Republic, which are more meant to prove a point than be taken at face value.
Cabbage4998 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:30:42 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're right, it's not exactly silly. The "root idea" of it, that ideas are different from objects, was insightful. He was mislead in his conclusion to this issue, and that it what I was referring to when I said it was silly.
What do you mean by the "three waves of reform"? We most likely read different translations of the book.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:50:38 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That makes sense. I'm speaking to Socrates' prescription for the entirely just city in which he recommends the same roles for men and women, communism of women and children, and finally philosopher kings, suggestions that were ultimately meant to show that translating perfect individual justice to the city was impossible and would in fact make life hellish, which was taught to me to mean that perfect political justice is inherently impossible. But if you were reading The Republic as a literal guide to creating a just city, you would think those ideas are not only silly, but insane.
Cabbage4998 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:57:52 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see. I recall Plato describing how this society would devolve in to other forms of government, but I do not remember him suggesting that the society was flawed before said devolution. Could you explain this to me?
Donkeydongcuntry ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:36:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not only do they not want to be freed but may very well kill the escapee to keep intact their own understanding of reality. We see this play out all the time; nobody wants to realize they may have been previously bamboozled and will often double their efforts when confronted with the truth.
Man_with_lions_head ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:55:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, I feel this very deeply in respect to religion. People just cannot give up this shadow on the wall. I feel like I have been out of the cave, have seen the fire causing the fire on the wall. Yet everyone believing in religion wants to stay chained up.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In modern Platonic study, it's widely regarded as impossible for someone living in the modern, neoliberal international system to escape the cave. Most people can barely comprehend what it means to be in the cave. Realizing that something is a social construct isn't "going outside the cave."
Man_with_lions_head ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:24:36 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, to the extent that we may be living in the Matrix, it may be 100% impossible to get out of the cave. Maybe we are the dream, of a dream, of a dream, of a 2,432-dimensional being. Maybe we are all disembodied brains. Maybe we are living in an actual fart of some supersized creature. Who the fuck knows. I could go on like this for hours on random "who knows" kind of shit.
So, yes, at some point, one can think up all kinds of scenarios. But, in this universe, taking it for what it presents itself as, there are 'better' and 'lesser' ideas of "the cave" and "the shadows. "
shmatelyn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:15:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just expanding on this to add that(at least from my understanding)it is the duty of the person who had seen the light to return to the cave and share their newly found knowledge with those still in the dark.
mosotaiyo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:37:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
RIP Santa Clause...
For the kids out there: He is real, keep on beliebing :P
moreawkwardthenyou ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:26:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Magic mushrooms kinda did this to me. You walk a knifes edge after.
Seemoose227 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:33:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Really? In my experience I just kind of remembered what happened but I didnโt really feel like I was living in a โfakeโ world or anything.
moreawkwardthenyou ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:44:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This world feels fake my dude
MangaDev ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:05:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Weed did that to me , haven't been the same ever since
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:11:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did you highly contextualize the experience as 'just drugs'? Because when you think about it, everything changes us, but the things that change us the most dramatically we call drugs and sanction them off as if those experiences are somehow lesser.
Anyway, I was on LSD this one time, and I noticed that there was a very distinct feeling between looking at my phone and looking out into my room, changing rooms, etc. It was just an exaggerated version of something that happens all the time anyway, and if I look for it even now, I can see the stark fragility of my own experience. So you can have those kinds of world-altering experiences too, even if the trip itself isn't seen fully as another aspect of reality.
Where's a memory when you're not remembering it? If I'm not thinking about the outside world right now, while I'm sitting inside, then it doesn't really exist to me. The moment I think about it, I've remembered it, and so naturally I'd say that it exists. But it's just as easy to see that it normally doesn't. In that way, the world is easily seen as fake.
Seemoose227 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:40:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโve done my fair share of lsd for sure, and I get what youโre saying about transitions from place to place. And when you think about it, really the world only exists inside our own head. Itโs kind of the reasoning behind one of my favorite quotes โsave one person and you save the world.โ (or however it goes, in obviously paraphrasing here) I think that psychedelics can open up new thought patterns and ideas in people, which effectively changes the world. Not sure what Iโm trying to say but I definitely Dog where youโre coming from with how it can change how you see the world around you.
electrogeek8086 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:22:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks bud ! I'll have to reread it for sure !
coleosis1414 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:46:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But you can only make discoveries if there's anything to find.
In the allegory of the cave, the source of the shadows can be found. It can be perceived.
If we're brains in a jar, but we have no way of perceiving it, it doesn't matter.
noobswag99 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:09:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I guess that's just the Plato theory. I think Descartes thinks like you do when he says that "I think therefore I am". Because his brain is capable of making thoughts, he agrees that he must exist in some fashion, whether or not he can perceive it. True perception doesn't matter as long as you continue to exist.
PlatosOtherCave ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:01:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thats just like, your opinion man
popartsnewthrowaway ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:55:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Plato's pretty explicit that it's puppets or somethinh like that casting the shadows in front of a fire
noobswag99 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:00:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right but the question is, are the puppets a 1:1 ratio of the shadows or are they completely distorted?
popartsnewthrowaway ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:36:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, does it matter? The point us the shadows are only an illusionary reality. It takes education and thought to find one'side way out of the cave and emerge into the genuine sunlight
noobswag99 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So this isnt the idea of his. His idea is that the entire concepts of reality, everything encompassed, are merely reflections being displayed onto the cave. Any knowledge of chemistry, physics, science disciplines are simply observations of the shadows themselves. True meta thinking is when you start to question the source of these shadows. To plato, there is a very high chance that the puppets creating the shadows are perfectly similar to the shadows, therefore the world we percieve is likely to be the true representation and our understanding of science is relevant, but there is a chance it is distorted to a view only we can understand.
popartsnewthrowaway ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:51:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Uh, what? No. The only point to the shapes is that they cast shadows that the prisoners take for reality due to familiarity, their shape is irrelevant because the world outside the cave is plato's reality. Who taught you this?
noobswag99 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:34:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My apologies, this was the description a philosophy 102 professor gave to me. If this is incorrect would you mind giving me a comprehensive explanation of the theory?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:58:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Basically it means that you only really understand what you have seen. You can only think in forms that exist in your mind, that you have perceived or constructed.
The story's like, some people only saw shadows on a wall their entire life, they thought the whole world was shadows, until they were set free and saw the real world.
OgdruJahad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:41:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe a Ted-Ed can help.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:47:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I will, thank you for the recommendation!
post-posthuman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:20:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't part of the allegory how one of the prisoners gets free and goes out and sees the real world and goes to guide the unenlightened other prisoners because he has seen the real world that they see nothing but the shadow of? And he insisted that our world was the same, nothing but a shadow of some world of ideals, were the platonic (he probably used an earlier word for it) ideals of all concepts existed and was the "truly real" world that mattered. So I would say the direct opposite to optimistic nihilism.
bearrr16 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:26:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
itโs really genius it is the perfect example of all we see is all we know and itโs 100% true thereโs really no way to disagree with it. definitely one of my favourite things iโve read
TheloniousPhunk ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:53:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always tell people I'd take the blue pill. At first they look at me like "what, but it's a lie".
And then I point out how fucking miserable the "real world" was in The Matrix.
Like, you're given an option to stay in your dreamland, or be awoken into something that is apparently far worse and sinister. Fuck man, unless my life is really that bad, I'ma stay under.
iwviw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:02:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is deep
Brook420 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:52:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This exact concept gets covered in the Matrix with the guy who wants to be put back in and not remember the real world.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:32:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yep exactly. And similar to some of the episodes in the Black Mirror series.
Brook420 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:08:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Haven't seen Black Mirror, not even sure what it's about.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:09:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a sci-fi/dystopian near-future series on Netflix. If you're into that sort of thing, I would highly recommend it. If not, ignore this. lol
Brook420 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:14:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If it's written well I'm in.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:18:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Very much so. Word of warning, even if you don't like the first episode, I would keep watching for a few episodes after that, they are much different from the first. (each is a completely stand-alone episode)
coleosis1414 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:45:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd probably swallow the blue pill, TBH.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:08:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a tough one for me. I think I would take the red pill despite it being a lot harder, I would want to live in "reality." Yet, the paradox of being alive is that we can't prove that even choosing the red pill is "reality."
CarmelaMachiato ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:17:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโd take both. Fuck it, if theyโre handing out free pills....
StormSurge83 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:58:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is similar to the "evil demon" scenario with thick and thin illusions.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am not familiar with this. I googled the term "evil demon," and came across a Descartes theory that seems to match this idea. Is this what you are referring to?
StormSurge83 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:15:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That is correct.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:16:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
nice, I will check that out!
Lammy8 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:15:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, social media?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:43:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of a completely immersive virtual reality, but I do think that social media is heading this way for sure.
austex3600 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:20:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ya why not go rock climbing in a simulator instead of traveling thousands of miles to the real mountain.saves a lot of travel if tour AR is real enough.
Demojen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:35:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lots of people do this. In fact the human mind deliberately encourages you to enter a fantasy state of mind when you're depressed. It's a method of coping with the pain.
While some people write and others exercise to get through the pain, still many go to sleep and dream of a world where it doesn't hurt and they aren't crying.
Texastexastexas1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:02:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
With the advances being made in VR gaming worlds, I can imagine this happening in the future.
2Punx2Furious ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:26:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah. If you can't distinguish it from "reality" it really makes no difference.
An indistinguishable simulation isn't any less real than "reality".
Skrid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:29:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also hallucinogens
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:28:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yaโll just went full black mirror
biscuitpotter ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:31:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I literally cannot understand why I wouldn't just stay in the Matrix. That's bothered me for years.
OgdruJahad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:42:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Some people wonder if its all real, but I thnk the truth is that if we live in a simulation and its of a really high resolution like maybe GTA on steroids it probably doesn't matter.
JedediahThePilot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:37:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is actually a major plot point in the Matrix series and is what ultimately resolves the main conflict in the end. One of many great ideas that those movies epically fumbled.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 16:56:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Depends on your definition of "real" I suppose.
yesanything ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 17:38:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
countering existential dread daily!
Forosnai ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 20:33:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
More accurate might be, "If it's indistinguishable from a reality (maybe not the one we physically inhabit in a brain-in-vat scenario, but a reality), then what's functionally the difference?"
My example for trying to explain my view is, say you're stressed and go to get a massage to relax. You get someone to give you a reiki massage, and you feel better. Does it make any difference for your experience, in terms of going from stressed to relaxed, if your chakra/ki/whatever was manipulated versus relaxing muscle manipulation and touch? The energy part might not be physically real, but it's still a part of your experience of reality.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:42:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your example is kind of misguided though.
There's a difference between determing what's reality, and interpreting things that aren't real even in your frame of reference.
That kind of thinking like you described is why people can look at rain after praying, and thinking the Gods are listening to them. There's a big difference between the chaotic nature of weather, and the idea that a deity is actually listening to a person's prayers...
It's a dangerous slippery slope that many throughout history have used to justify all kinds of horrible shit.
Spacealienqueen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:53:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But then that leads to the question what is"real".
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:27:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was basically saying reality is subjective.
Are you saying it's actually objective?
Replis ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 08:16:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reality are the sum of things we observe and experience. So we can sum it up like this: Ourselves, our life, and the universe. So it's objective.
Naming things, like the phone in your hand right now happens like this: You observe it with your sense organs, they direct it to your (healthy) brain, the brain checks with preliminary information of the phone in your hand and because you know because of the information that it is called "phone", you name it.
When we do this, we can be sure of 1 thing: It exists.
So everything that we can observe, it exist and we can name it.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:35:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not objective.
Perception and reality itself is subjective. People with color blindness or other conditions perceive the world differently from you. It'd be a world you wouldn't consider "real" and yet for them it IS real. That's the simplest example, but it highlights how you can not consider reality to be objective.
How do you know?
How do you know you're not just a brain sitting a vat of fluid, being fed electrical impulses as stimuli from an outside source giving you all the necessary data your brain needs to construct the "fake" world around you?
You would have no way of knowing that. No way to figure out if that's what's happening or not.
Do you see where the problem lies? You're trying to say you know exactly what's going, that reality itself is objective, when in fact you have no way of prove anything for sure.
And in the end, you still have no idea if it's real or not..
homo_redditorensis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:56:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What does the change part mean? I don't get why change and real are mutually exclusive?
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:07:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When they say change, they mean does it really matter either way?
If everything we experience is "real", or if we're in the matrix in a simulation, or we're just bundles of atom/molecules in a complex system of chemical reactions, we still perceive ourselves the way we are.
Regardless of what's true, we are as we perceive ourselves to be.
"I think, therefore I am."
What were you confused about?
homo_redditorensis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:14:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oops, i completely misread it, thanks for clarifying
Eeyore_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:23:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Worked for Slick Willy!
insanemembrane19 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:14:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm content with the fact that we are alone in the universe and that nothing we do will have any serious effect on the outcome of life in general... it's the other possibilities that truly scare me.
urbanhawk_1 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:33:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unless you transcribe to the tenets of Last Thursdayism which is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday and that everything, including your memories of the time before last Thursday, was all formed at the time of creation. Under this principal most of your experiences are not real and were only made up last Thursday. I'd say that changes things.
elephantlaboratories ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:15:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's like this but every moment instead of an arbitrary time point.
coleosis1414 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:44:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
At the end of the day it's irrelevant.
It's fun to think about, but it's nothing to fall into a crisis over, as some people seem to feel.
If we are a brain in a jar, or a science experiment in some higher dimension, or a computer simulation, that fact is in a dimension which we cannot perceive. So it doesn't matter.
It's also an unfalsifiable hypothesis. i can't prove that I'm NOT a brain floating in a jar, but there's no evidence to suggest that I am.
There's a thought experiment for this (and the existence of God, actually) which says "Prove to me that there isn't a pink teapot floating in space somewhere between Earth and Mars."
If I can't disprove it, does that mean I should assume it exists? No.
It's almost always impossible to prove a negative.
Extend this out to a practical use case: A fair criminal trial.
It is the prosecution's job to prove the defendant committed a crime.
It is NOT the defense's job to prove the defendant DIDN'T commit the crime (proving a negative) because that's practically impossible in most cases.
The defense only has to demonstrate that the prosecution doesn't have proof, or that their "proof" is flawed / has room for doubt.
ChiP60 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:47:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I believe you are referring to Bertrand Russell's teapot.
meyersjs ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:00:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok but you can still ask the question โif all these things about science are what they seem to be, how does consciousnesses fit inโ. The good thing about asking questions about science is it can lead you to be able to predict and control things.
bunker_man ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:38:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No. This is just using words wrong.
seancurry1 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:17:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think of it like this:
It's very possible, even likely, that this is all a simulation in some way or another, and that something grander exists outside of this. But if I were to take that to mean that this here-and-now stuff โ my day to day experiences โ didn't matter because there's something bigger than them, then isn't it also fair to say that that grander stuff ALSO doesn't matter because there's ALSO something bigger than IT?
At what point does it start to matter? At what point can you not go up another level?
You have three choices: keep hunting for the level at which things finally matter (which likely doesn't exist, by that reasoning), decide that absolutely nothing matters and completely and totally check out, or decide that you might as well accept this reality as the one that exists.
Sure, other ones may exist on a bigger scale that have greater importance, but I can't do lick spit about them. There is literally nothing I can do to affect the reality my reality is a simulation within, so I might as well just accept that this is my reality, and do the best I can with it.=
GremiousGremy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:39:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We covered this in first year psychology for just a bit. For the whole "are we just a brain in a jar" situation, overall, the science boils down to 2 answers(sorry, I do not remember who to cite, this was ages ago):
We don't know (until we can make such a simulation ourselves)
and
Why should we care?
blackleaf31 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:42:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, the way I see it, if we are all just computer simulations running in a program somewhere, what we perceive as real is as real is it is going to get, so there is no difference.
Dqueezy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:58:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My waffles are going to taste just as delicious!
mosotaiyo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:36:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely changes thing.
You know that feeling people talk about when they speak of standing on mount everest, or being on the ISS and looking down at the earth from farther away? It makes them feel small, unimportant, and that is somehow comforting (most of the time) to the person....
I think that's a similar emotion that would be triggered finding out we are an intelligence species glowing on a mold spore for some alien kid's 3rd grade science project.
If someone convinced me that was our case, I probably wouldn't work 40h/wk to pay bills so I can continue working in relative comfort.
annafirtree ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:16:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You wouldn't work to keep yourself in relative comfort? What alternative would you take instead?
mosotaiyo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:35:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not really sure or positive of anything that's a pretty major mindset change to think about.
But if I'm speaking plainly, I would probably take more risks, value my life less, value my future and value descendants or any lineage or whats the word... legacy.
Maybe try to rob a bank or something stupid like that :)
Comfort is a relative term... I mean I was comfortable living in front of moms house in an RV. Actually I found that more comfortable than any rental... I miss that RV, only got to live in that thing for like 6 mo... Maybe I'd buy an RV and go nomad around in my RV.
TheLonelyGentleman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:32:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember arguing something like this when I wrote a philosophy paper about "brains in a vat" and Descartes' dream demon. Basically if our outside world is an illusion, and there is no escape from it, it doesn't matter. It's still "reality" to the person.
Engineer1822 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:12:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You forgot the optimistic part.
Optimistic-nihilist ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:23:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah ?
Kansai_Moth ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:34:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Conan the Barbarian.
sevenandseven41 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:06:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Conan O'Barbarian, late night talk show host.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I tried to say this to my sister once! I told her everything in the universe eventually ends in zero whether it is good or bad, so why not do everything I want because I am going to die anyway. Why not have a good time when nothing matters?
jjconstantine ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:43:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I saw that episode of Kurzgesagt
Creationpedro ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:39:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
its like keeping cognitively conscious and conceptually intelligent ants. to them a terrarium is the real like and real world so our is just in our conscious thought a ball that floats in a black sea of nothing and we only conceptualise the existence of a higher being(s). a being that drinks dark matter how about that for thought.
thewickedgoat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:33:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So much this.
Even if we are virtualized - it doesn't change the fact that we can probably never prove it (Unless Nero has something to say about it). It doesn't really change anything.
give_me_bewbz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:47:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I hate how that Kurzgesagt video basically renamed it just to throw in the more popularly known "nihilism".
It's called existentialism.
AbrarHossainHimself ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:00:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Late to join the party.But I was thinking about this recently.So here it goes.
How can we be so sure of that?How do we know that consciousness isn't some two lines of code written into us and that what we perceive as consciousness is nothing but a thought experiment by the alien on his science project to make it a little more interesting?
qwerty12qwerty ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:36:56 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is "real" from your perspective. Even if it was 2 lines of code, you would still experience adventure, love, and heart break
Think of it like this: To my dog, everything he experiences is real and done on his own accord. Reality is that I am behind the curtain controlling every single aspect of her life.
m0le ยท 128 points ยท Posted at 15:24:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, we're feeding the sensation that your consciousness is continuous into you along with the nutrient goop. You're actually just a single brief computation of the next state before you die and we spin up that guy.
Conscious_Mollusc ยท 79 points ยท Posted at 15:36:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even if it's not continuous (which is more than fair to doubt), it still exists in individual moments.
m0le ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 15:46:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now thats an interesting philosophy question. I'd argue that consciousness is linked to thinking about thinking, but if you have no time to do anything that isn't an automatic response, are you still conscious? How about if your memory is altered between each quantum of thought, or your emotions, or your powers of reason?
I'd argue that we don't know enough about consciousness yet, what it actually is, to understand what will happen when we are eventually able to fully simulate a human brain and these issues come up, but it's fun to think about.
kevesque ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:57:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are still conscious just like an animal. But you are just not conscious of having thoughts, of reflecting on ideas, all that stuff but the immediate sensory aspect of consciousness is practically exactly the same in mammals with the same neurotransmitters giving the same general sensations we do
Quigleyer ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:38:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Aren't we discussing sentience?
If I am correct in this assumption then it seems strange to me to consider less intelligent animals to be "conscious," but a computer to not be. Isn't it the same idea? Is being programmed any different than running entirely off of instinct?
kevesque ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:52:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
tl;dr - sentience vs consciousness
Imagine a cat or dog yawning and stretching before falling asleep. Since they are mammals, most of what they feel and the way their bodies senses things, as well as large parts of their behavior, are 100% the same. That same adrenaline rush from fear or endorphine from stretching or exercize, dopamine and serotonine for sexual pleasure and general drive in looking for food or for mating. All of these things are more or less the same from their point of view, without all the added pre-frontal cortex structures on top, infact its the reason for successful domestication (other than just by human coercion like with horses or tamed animals); cats, dogs, cows, sheep, goats and pigs all were originally socially organized animals, working in hierarchies over territories. Humans have simply hijacked this indirectly over centuries after themselves being transformed from coevolving alongside these animals and learning from them.
So, yeah. Quite far from what we do with computers. A computer is like a tiny part of what we can do, but that part is magnified to huge proportions, but it is still just a glorified calculator.
In the future when we make sentient machines I'm sure we wouldn't consider them like tools, we maynot even use or know of the word "computer" altogether in our lives by then.
Quigleyer ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:57:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's a great explanation, thanks for that.
kevesque ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:58:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's tricky to draw a precise line between conscience and sentience, just like it's impossible to know when one species officially becomes another, we just draw a line based on reasonable methodology and make models. But I think the shift from unconscious reflexes to conscious, or thinking, animals is as blurry as the shift from social, tribally organized apes which exhibit some flashes of sentience (observable signs, such as with dolphins or bonobos today) to individuals with a form of ego structure from accumulated social communication, and self-consciousness; it was rapid but still over such a long timespan that no single individual ever could be fully aware of this process.
I believe that such ideas centered on the Self, individuality, and consciousness - our own name and reputation, our own possessions, our own offspring, our own birth and inevitable death - all of these slowly but surely installed themselves in our psyche well before we had words to express them; language and higher cognition just unfolded as more of our inner complexity radiated out into social patterns, which then resonate back into new generations, one little step at a time through oral transmission of creation myths and cultural traditions. Sudden leaps forward in the construction of meaning around these questions, from the reactions to natural disasters or to inter-cultural clashes, are undoubtedly the main drivers which gave birth to the language, culture, identity, religion, art and science which are the pillars of human civilization.
I think the invention of writing (from cave paintings to hieroglyphs) around the beginning of agriculture, really unlocked the "poisoned gift" of intelligence, the powerful deceptive and corrupt potential of human sentience, of individuals themselves (by association), at least in the minds of people, as it started becoming profitable to use language to climb the social ranks beyond the scope of our typical tribal, social network, humans have done every evil deed imaginable only to find that natural pressures always find a way of forcing us back into our biological reality, in an enhanced fashion; it's happening in front of our eyes right now, and we're the lucky ones who get to experience not just witnessing, but just even knowing that this is happening, knowing where we come from and where we're going, basically having nailed everything EXCEPT the acceptation of our paradoxical, dual nature and identity, both beastly and godly, and sort of, the realization that everything is flipped on its head, amplified to exagerated proportions and a seemingly out of control chaotic mess simply because we're RIGHT on the line, only one foot through the door, sort of, awkward and self-conscious, caught in the act, in a way that we've never seen and likely will never see again in our evolution. Wanting to go forward but at the same time secretly wishing we were more like dolphins, just swimming and playing in the ocean and not doing this maddening ceaseless building and destroying on our rollercoaster ride up to the stars.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:05:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dont think we are close to simulating a brain. The brain is so much more then a neural network. There's lots of software and layers to it. Even the pattern recognition of of the brain is eons ahead of current tech. The brain can almost instantly recognize something, and weigh and measure millions of different properties of that entity on just a few watts, if not less.
Scientist like to talk big shit about technology and research, but the brain is something altogether different. Most things that resemble intelligence in machines are patterns and tricks. There isn't actual sentience. There isn't actual understanding of what something is and the huge ecosystem of context and filters the human brain has.
Even simulation of a physical brain isn't gonna be easy. You are talking about a 100 billion different nodes, sometimes with hundreds or thousands of independent analog connections, and that isn't to even speak of the amazingly complex chemical system, of hormones, proteins and the epigenetics. The complex phase system of shifting frequency which may very well radically affect the function of individual circuits or networks.
There is so much complexity and entropy, it's possible that the complexity of the human brain is more numerous then atoms of matter in the universe.
m0le ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:20:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think we're all that close yet, but the level of computing power available continues to rise quite quickly, as does our understanding of the brain (look at the work being done by the human connectome project, for example).
Remember, a physical simulation need not be power efficient or even real time - if it ends up taking us multiple megawatts to simulate a system that uses a few watts, that's what we call an efficiency problem for later.
I think the complexity issue is also a red herring - after all, there are more possible bridge hands (cards) than atoms in the universe, but that doesn't stop us analysing and simulating the game in detail.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:03:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True about the energy consumption and time. However when you play cards it's a limited set being used at once, with a limited set of interactions. You cant simulate every possible combination of cards interacting with each other in real time.
The brain isn't really like 100 billion bits, but 100 billion op amps with modifiers for chemicals, and other things built in. Not only are you dealing with a complex range of input and output, but layered dimensions of complexity added by chemical activating or deactivating of certain things, or even modifying them in some ways.
Also how much of the software of the brain is genetic firmware? How much of it is memory? How much is language and context?
How complex is a newborn's brain? Without anything learned? I feel as though its extreamly complex, because just the act of learning and recursive self improvement is extraordinary.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I dont think we are as close as we think. The brain is truly an amazing thing. Concessiness as hacky as it sounds is so freaking insane and amazing when you actually think about it.
I believe we are close to robots that can work in a semi intelligent way without accidentally killing your pets, but a machine to rival the great gem of reality, The human mind? I'm not so sure...
m0le ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:11:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, I agree totally, it's in the "hopefully in my lifetime" pile rather than the "next year" one.
The brain is possibly the most complex bit of matter we know, and we're still closer to poking it with a stick than complete understanding, but we're making progress slowly but surely.
DrunkenHeartSurgeon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:15:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is that a real thing, though. Can't you have thoughts WHILE doing something automatically?
gaslightlinux ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 18:49:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's an islamic sect that believes the Universe is created in every moment by the will of God.
Sp3ctr37 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:11:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting...I'm Muslim and I've never heard of such a sect. Could you tell me the name of it? Also, if you mean that the universe is being expanded in every moment, then yeah, that makes fair sense. But do you mean that the universe is being recreated every moment? Because that would just be weird.
gaslightlinux ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:24:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Don't remember off-hand, but yeah, every moment the universe is recreated by the will and grace of god. My friend is a professor specializing in all of this, so I trust him, but can't remember it off-hand and by the time I hear back I will have lost this thread. Try googling?
OrphanBach ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:11:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That would be occasionalism.
7H3D3V1LH1M53LF ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 22:02:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh good, some non-philosophy.
gaslightlinux ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:10:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, there's no connection between religions and philosophies.
[deleted] ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 16:10:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And im just here shitposting. Neat
thatnameagain ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:54:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That sounds more complex than consciousness.
m0le ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:09:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Being a mad scientist means you don't have to justify your work :)
musclenugget92 ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 18:16:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consciousness isn't even real time. There's a delay between the light hitting your eyes and your brains computation. You're living in a post-hoc world bro. The things you think you're seeing in real time already happened.
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:29:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but it's still there.
PutinPaysTrump ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:43:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So does this mean you never actually experience your own death?
musclenugget92 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 20:05:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think this answer really changes either way. To experience is to have knowledge of an occurrence, and I'm not sure if once you're dead you'll have knowledge of your death. You'll just be dead.
I believe in a real-time existence and post-hoc existence we may have the ability to understand "Okay, I'm about to die" but once we actually die, I don't think there's any cognitive recognition.
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:29:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but it's still there.
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:30:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but it's still there.
Clashin_Creepers ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:37:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You triple posted
fuckiforgotmyaccount ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:52:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, this fucking blew my mind. This is actually perception changing to me.
Tarcanus ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:02:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why? We're talking very very tiny increments of time for the brain to do its computations. It's not like you're seeing a world that happened 5 minutes ago. You're seeing a world that happen microseconds ago, if even that(I don't know the science, just that it's fast).
musclenugget92 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:08:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I believe the delay is around 2ms-5ms, iirc. so not a lot, for sure. It does however pose a lot of questions about consciousness and whether or not we have free will. If we are constantly responding to universe that is ahead of us, are we truly acting under our own free will? It's an interesting concept, to me at least.
elephantlaboratories ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:20:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
From 50-500ms actually, depending on how much higher brain function is needed: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-temporal/empirical-findings.html#DelaHowLong
musclenugget92 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:08:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's actually huge. When I play an online computer game, anything above 50ms is quite noticeable. I hope the commenter that sort of disregarded this information sees it.
musclenugget92 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:02:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's a really good book that touches on this stuff called "Who's in charge? Free will and the science of the brain" by Michael S. Gazzaniga if you're interested. I'm not sure if he mentions the time delay via light specifically, but he does go into how we have an interpreter module (the amygdala) that initiates subconscious activities and perceptions without us even realizing it until after we've already initiated the behavior. The question arises of whether or not we acted with free will, and under our own volition, or of we are constantly just operating under an information processing system (sort of like a production system) where the inputs are directly correlated to outputs.
All of this sounds very dense but the author makes it very clear and easy to understand, but at the same time retains the significance of the suggested material. Highly recommend.
6510 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:28:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you like that, wait until you read about Chronostasis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostasis
Ever look at a clock and notice when you first focus on it that the second hand seems to take a long time before it moves? Itโs an artifact of your internal processing filling in a small gap in your memory after the change in attention has completed.
And do you ever seem to wake up to right before your alarm goes off? No you didnโt, itโs yet another post hoc construction of events.
omniakanitas ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:11:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
didnt that asian guy say that? Hishio or something right?
musclenugget92 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:24:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have no idea who that Asian guy is, but this subject was discussed a lot in my Biological psychology courses
omniakanitas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:10:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Michio Kaku is the guy. I heard him tall about it on this AM radio show one time. There was no FM available at the moment
helm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:31:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hello, P-zombie, nice to meet you.
Metaquotidian ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:14:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Boltzmann Brain
hedgeson119 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:48:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nope, not even. Cogito Ergo Sum is fallacious.
kanzenryu ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:03:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like:
I think I think, therefore I might be.
hedgeson119 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:07:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Much better!
Although, "I" is still not exactly founded.
kanzenryu ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:11:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Heh, true. The think I hate is when people say "The only think I can be perfectly sure of is that I am conscious" and they put zero effort into thinking about it and won't entertain any possible counter-arguments. That's how you get stuck on a flat-earth viewpoint for a thousand years.
hedgeson119 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:18:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Cogito is just starting to annoy me, I keep seeing it pop up on Reddit, and I wish it would stop...
emjaytheomachy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:37:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Get out of my vat!
PM-me-Paintings ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:46:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think, therefore i am
Topsecretrocketman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:26:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are Krang.
DexiMachina ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:18:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can I request a different vat?
Towerss ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:06:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's kind of comforting. The only thing we care about is the only thing we know is real
The_Godlike_Zeus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:48:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not the only thing. Emotions are real too.
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:23:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Emotions reside within the realm of consciousness, it's not a separate thing.
The_Godlike_Zeus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:57:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Animals have emotions. Are animals conscious?
OblongOolong ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:45:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would you agree there are different levels of consciousness?
Mokoko42 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:24:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Aren't they?
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:03:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโd argue they have consciousness. What degree? Itโd be conjecture.
HOB_I_ROKZ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:02:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ty Descartes
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Cognitoergosum
paxgarmana ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:18:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that's Descartes in a nutshell - doubt everything and then move up from there
fro5sty900 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:27:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think, so I am!
farm_ecology ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:45:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue that even that we cannot be absolutely sure of. If we entertained the possibility that our brain (or at least whatever is generating this experience) is flawed, then it stands to reason that we cannot completely trust the conclusions it comes to.
karkovice1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:27:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think, therefore I am
Rene Descartes
Ritter97 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:57:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think, therefore I am.
coleosis1414 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:39:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In simpler terms, "I think therefore I am."
Thanks, Renee Des Cartes!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:15:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Take it further. How do I know you're conscious? Maybe you're just a p-zombie. I'm the only one I truly know is conscious.
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:58:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But thatโs the point. If consciousness exists for you then it exists and itโs real. Itโs basically the first, and therefore only, connection to whateverโs outside our experience.
Love_like_fools ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:24:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My man Husserl!
BullShitInspectorer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:25:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No its not how do we even know its real or do other being experience it, how do we know this isnt a simulation. Its positively the one think humans are unsure of.
Lord_Blackthorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:36:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unless that brain is just a program decrypting/encrypting information. Information is intentionally and specially fed into it from external sources (input) and we process it (experiences) and then encrypt that data (memories) We could just be an encryption tool and all of this is just a nth-dimensional array of input data..
Conciousness being just an imagionary byproduct of processing the data, but not real.
Davidgilmoredisciple ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:24:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can only be certain of my consciousness. I have no idea if you exist independent of my mind or not. There is no If we are all just a brain in a vat here.
gregariousbarbarian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:55:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think therefore I am
kanzenryu ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:06:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Illusion of Consciousness is interesting https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness
BrohanGutenburg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:51:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. Something a lot of people have heard, but this right here is what Descartes was talking about.
flintmflb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:34:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Solipsism is the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
andre2150 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:20:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Rhymes well.
i_smell_toast ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:34:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think, therefore there are thoughts - pretty sure that was Bertrand Russell taking it one step further than Descartes.
kamihaze ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:43:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think, therefore i spam
helm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:31:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Brain in a vat" is solipsism in disguise.
It's one of those things that's hard to disprove, but doesn't lead to anything interesting.
TheNarrowWizard ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:42:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah but we are not just a brain in a vat, if a brain in a vat had the thought "I am a brain in a vat" then it would necessarily be wrong because the concepts that it attaches the words brain and vat to are not real brains and real vats as it has never experienced such 'real' items only representations of them which is what it would therefore be referring to when using those concepts.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 287 points ยท Posted at 16:37:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My theory is that what we experience as consciousness is actually a filter of sorts, or a communications layer. For example, computers are doing crazy computations behind the scenes all the time, but we see it as a picture on a screen or audio etc, we don't see the actual computations happening because we wouldn't be able to understand it.
So I think consciousness is just a simplification or highly filtered layer - all this complex information processing fed into a fuzzy logic machine. Consciousness, and what I consider to be "me", is just the simplest most dumbed down layer of the brain. Along those lines, I think if we were to make truly conscious AI, we would need to force restrictions on it - such that it would need to perform computations quicker than possible, but allow it a margin of error, so it would be forced to get approximately correct answers instead of exactly correct answers, and come up with tricks and shortcuts, much as our brain does.
I think for consciousness to exist, we have to be abstracted away from the complex inner workings, and it's this abstraction layer that we perceive as being "us".
I don't think I've put that across very well but hopefully you get what I'm saying.
so_jc ยท 125 points ยท Posted at 19:54:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So youre saying consciousness is an emergent abstraction layered over a complex set of computations?
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 85 points ยท Posted at 20:03:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yup that's exactly it. Our brains do all sorts of crazy shit that we're not directly privvy to, which is why optical illusions work, they give us an insight into the shortcuts our brains are taking, and the end result that our consciousness (or abstraction layer) experiences.
kevesque ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 23:26:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think you raise a very valid point especially with the filter idea, as studies show we actually perceive and think much more than we are conscious of because of the filtering quality of cognition - focus attention on a task or train of thought as much as necessary and so there is a whole layer of logic operations right under the surface of conscious awareness which makes arbitrary decisions as to what information should be discarded and which should be brought up and sent into the conscious mind.
However I want to add to this, that you may be underestimating the importance and sort of, central role played by the ego and the active conciousness which we call us. The fact that it is a whole in terms of individuality, that it is self-aware, the fact that MY conscious reality is clearly distinct from the unconscious one or the reality of others...
that layer of abstraction, in fact, it may have been more like that at the beginning of the human species. But over a million years of conscious, social interaction and communication between highly self-aware people is a different story altogether. We have been centering around and giving enormous importance to the notion that we are sentient that we have in effect conditionned a whole ecosystem and climate and lush jungle of mental concepts, imaginary or real perception of rich sources of information, ever-growing, like food for thought in a way.
So the actual object of the Self is as much a whole, real legitimate function, as a bird or lizard is a whole real animal. Sure it's a collection of evolutionary adaptations and upper layer of a set of complex computations, but it is also a finite, internally coherent entity of its own, litterally an intelligent lifeform hatching out from our animal bodies, a self-replicating mechanical species, the new pinnacle of complexity manifested by the universe, in the form of a highly social, sentient self-consciousness-based entity slowly ripping our biology apart as it is litterally born from the accumulation of all of our evolutive leaps as well as all form of complex advances in the evolution of life and of natural laws preceding us.
NeptunesSon ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:42:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's the real mind-blower.
TL;DR: Our egos are a species which is making our bodies extinct.
kevesque ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:38:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or immortal, depends how you see it. But it boils down to the same de-naturalisation of humans and eventual ditching of the whole concept of inhabiting and being restricted to a single physical body.
For anyone interested in space, science and futurism of this flavor, and imagination limited only by logic itself, check out Isaac Arthur's youtube channel it's a darned gold mine!!
ReaverParrell ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:07:34 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just gotta get past the Elmer Fudd lisp first then the videos are amazing. So many episodes, so many mind bending topics.
aleafytree ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:57:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And that was the day that NeptunesSon realized that humans are not the most advanced lifeforms to evolve on earth, just the closest to transcedning their physical condition comparatively, at this particular point in time.
riesenarethebest ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:44:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Read some Postmodernism books. City of Glass from Paul Auster, If on a winter's night a traveler, etc.
Reality is what we perceive.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:54:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It really is. I'm always looking for new stuff to read so I'll give them a look in, cheers :)
Mindfullmatter ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:09:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What your speaking of is perception of things. Consciousness canโt be this though, it is a sense of โI amโ that looks at this โscreenโ part of the brain you speak of.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What would you say to someone who doesnโt believe consciousness is tied to the brain
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:24:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't see where else it would be - before I type out a long response, could I get your opinion on where/what the consciousness is? I don't want to go waffling on if I'm misunderstanding you.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:29:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I claim to be no expert nor claim to have any understanding of philosophy. I also donโt necessarily have a fully formed opinion.
That being said it is my understanding that many would argue that consciousness is derived from something โhigherโ spiritually, be it god or something else (honestly what it is is arbitrary but Iโll further the point in the next sentence). They would argue that while the brain has chemical outputs derived from inputs and that may make us feel a certain way that the actual awareness of self is not and that the contrary has not been proven.
BellyPurpledGerbil ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 21:36:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The obvious answer to that argument, from my perspective, is that we know that we can damage our consciousness by damaging the brain. If we lose a limb or an organ, we retain our consciousness and our memory. If we lose a piece of our brain, we lose very specific consciousness and cognitive abilities according to where the brain was damaged. And when the brain dies, consciousness is lost. There is still a lot to be learned about those connections but it's currently the only argument I know of about where a consciousness in humans truly resides. To make the argument of a "spirit" or a "god-gifted awareness" one first has to prove those exist. We know the brain exists. We know consciousness exists. And we know that if we damage the brain, we damage consciousness.
ButtCityUSA ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 23:30:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like to think of it this way: if consciousness is a transcendent phenomenon (consciousness exists outside the material world, and exists prior to our experiences), then the brain can be seen as communicating experiences "upward" to it. So let's say a portion of my brain is destroyed, and I can no longer have thoughts in language form. You could say I no longer have the same consciousness, that it was corrupted and limited by the damage. Or you could say that the consciousness is untouched, it simply no longer has a brain speaking to it.
We can, through meditative exercise or adventurous use of psychedelics, experience drastically altered states of being. I have personally experienced being in states so radically different from normal life that it was hard to understand how I was the same person in both states. The answer was simply that I was. I was the only constant between two radically different people. I could very well be a transcendent consciousness, perhaps one that is shared amongst all being.
At times it seems crazy to believe that, but there is something so straightforward about it. I KNOW that I exist, and nothing else. Even the existence of the physical world is an assumption, and one I have experienced melt away. Perhaps the I that I know is the right place to hang my metaphysical hat.
lost-picking-flowers ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:06:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is what feels most intuitive to me. Consciousness is something that "plugs into the brain" and uses it as an interface of sorts to filter, shape, and actualize our realities. Obviously it's very simplistic and it draws from a lot of other theories, but it's my favorite so far.
ButtCityUSA ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:35:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A lot of issues with consciousness seemed to work themselves out when I started thinking outside the materialist box. There are definitely other mysteries out here, but those are for another thread!
BellyPurpledGerbil ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:14:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm really late to replying to this. The claim that consciousness is of a more transcendent phenomenon (spiritual) you appear to believe is based on a subjective stance that you think your mind isn't attached to your body. Subjective experience lacks repeatable proofs and cannot be regarded as evidence. One person on an acid trip is not going to have the same experience as another person on an acid trip. Our bodies all react differently to chemical influences and this is why we have such rigorous studies for medicines both biologically affecting and mental.
ButtCityUSA ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:31:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree, it is obvious the mind is connected to the body. An acid trip is is just an altered of the state of the brain, experienced subjectively. But I think there is something about consciousness that is distinct from the other functions of the mind. You can alter or lose many brain functions, yet retain consciousness in some limited state. The idea that consciousness exists alongside the brain is not so outlandish, and establishing any sort of evidence one way or the other is nearly impossible.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:41:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I canโt argue with most of that but some might point out that the brain may not necessarily be the source of the consciousness but merely the place it is connected with to the person. So in that scenario consciousness is separate and damaging the brain damages the connection to the physical body. The burden of proof can also be easily turned around to say โshow me the part of the brain that correlates to awareness of selfโ
Again these are not necessarily my beliefs but from what I understand are others
BellyPurpledGerbil ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:49:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree that it lacks very specific proof, at least at this moment in human history of neural science. The brain has been a tricky thing to analyze and we learn new and interesting things every year. However, that lack of information or explanation does not lend to being evidence of a spiritual or godly explanation. So at this point in the argument of consciousness is when people usually reach an impasse. We simply don't know enough to determine a reasonable answer. I would say instead that it is extremely likely that consciousness is derived from the brain according to current scientific understanding. And that's where I currently base my viewpoint.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:51:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs basically the conclusion I sit at right now and while obviously for practical purposes itโs good not to let any theory get in the way of empirical evidence.... I donโt have a rest of a sentence it was good talking with you!
BellyPurpledGerbil ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:53:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same! I enjoy talking about it because it is something I think about often. It's clear that we are more than just a brain in a jar that we call a body, but can we really determine that? Have a great day.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:56:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You've saved me a lot of typing by saying exactly what I think, thanks x)
MasterChief864 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:31:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The mind is an object in consciousness, the mind can only know other objects, it's impossible for the mind to have an understanding of consciousness because it's in consciousness, no scientist will ever be able to locate it in the brain because it isn't produced in the brain, the brain is an object in consciousness, not the other way around, consciousness is the eternal life of the universe, we are all the one consciousness experiencing the universe subjectively. Meditators have known this for thousands of years and it's nothing to do with religion or god although it is the essential life behind everything it could be referred to as god in that sense.
NeptunesSon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:48:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lack of information is indeed not proof of the opposite. The thing that gets me about mechanism is the rejection of the possibility of the laws of our universe changing. People really think this is the only universe. If one exists, why not others? To think only one exists is just like thinking the universe revolves around the earth. If many exist, why not some that don't have fixed laws? If some don't have fixed laws, what's keeping this universes' laws fixed?
I keep saying it: We're floating in a sea of chaos, the infinite potentiality of the multiverse.
slabby ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:30:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would say "wtf, consciousness is tied to the brain"
covor ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 01:20:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How do you know that? Why wouldn't the rocks be self aware? What makes the brain special? Just the fact that some electrons are changing orbits there?
slabby ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:24:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We don't "know" that, but it's extremely likely that dualism is false. Dualism is self-contradictory like 90% of the time because it needs epiphenomenalism to make sense, and epiphenomenalism is total BS.
There is just literally no proof of anything outside of the physical. There is no reason to believe in anything else. (And, no, thought experiments are not evidence.)
Similar deal with panpsychism.
Ficulinean ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:05:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hello. So, agreeing with most everything you say but taking minor issue with one thing. The common example of epiphenomenalism is, you are probably aware, the origin mattering for the meaning of paintings even should they be able to be entirely reproduced. The 'though experiment' seems to go that it matters who made it.
In a less strong sense we have indeterminacy of sensory input, or, the determination that differently constituted things are the same. Red-green colour blindness, having a favorite red shirt, it not being red, the choice still being made on account of it being 'red', and so on, which mean some degree of at the least recursivity of consciousness into consciousness is going to be the case. We should suspect this since the more materialistic view often relies on token-token match up between physical and mental states, including the chemical composition of the brain, when type-token is more likely and supported by any two pronged theory of emotion. Which is the more common one, where physiology and intentionality together define the label we give to an emotion.
More strongly, this is why our consciousness is ours. And why we can make things like choices.
So, eh, I'm going to go with some type of epiphenomenalism. It doesn't mean above the physical. It can mean that we're not those silly zombies, though, and that the mental as a particularly kind of physical has highly interactive properties.
. . . Let any conversation between you and I ignore anyone who uses this to argue for supernatural powers, though, because yeah, no.
covor ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:40:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If dualism is false, then everything can have a conscience. The sun for example has many orders of magnitude more electrons moving around, so I don't see how it would not be self aware if there is no thing such as a soul.
As for dualism, there is plenty of evidence that it's true. Near death experiences, reincarnation, and so on.
slabby ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:45:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Those are anecdotes. And, wtf? Reincarnation? That's not real, man.
covor ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:56:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did you read all the literature on it?
slabby ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:35:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's academic literature on reincarnation?
covor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:11:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, there is research on it, by a university professor. https://reincarnationresearch.com/childrens-past-life-memories-and-the-research-of-ian-stevenson-md/
so_jc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:30:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I suspect that the abstraction of those underlying calculations resulting in emergent consciousness is paired with some process of reification of ... something. I just don't know
bluebird173 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:21:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn, that's literally machine learning
Gonefullhooah ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:38:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consciousness is essentially our operating system. It's a translation of underlying facts in a form that is easier to understand, but false. A deep understanding of how consciousness works is similar to how if you took software programming classes, while youd still see the representation of underlying concepts (windows, etc), you'd understand it was a projection of sorts and youd grasp the concepts hidden behind it. Sort of like Neo seeing the lines of the matrix. Consciousness is translated mode of understanding that can be broadened through learning. The majority of people go through life the way your grandmother uses the computer to Facebook and send chain letters. Sort of a funny explanation, but meh.
gurnard ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:51:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An abstraction layer for whose benefit?
Tylerjb4 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:32:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Following natural selection, itโs just random mutation that adequately facilitated survival and passing of genes
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:23:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But how has it benefited our survival?
Tylerjb4 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:16:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Idk good question
tortugagigante ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:33:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying there's a chance...
lebaneselover ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:32:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This makes much sense but I would not call the result "dumbed down". It's just more simple and intuitive, a good tool for high level decision making (instead of being aware of everything that happens in your mind and body)
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:37:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes fair point, poor choice of words!
elkevelvet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:24:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right, to use a software metaphor it's like we render things according to specified filters to make some information explicit and hide other layers.
I agree the 'dumbed down' terminology is not entirely useful.. it's about what we need to access at what point. Ultimately though I think the analogy to computational/software language is limited. Like any reductive analogy, it has value to a point.
sweetmoses ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 21:10:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think consciousness is the highest layer of the brain, not the dumbest. It takes all of the past memories, combines it with the present sensory information, and makes predictions about the future while narrarating itself.
I think one could argue that computers already have a level of consciousness in the sense that they can combine simple processes to perform a complex -or external- task. If you think of DNA like DOS, it's easy to see how similar the nuts and bolts are between circuits and cells.
If we could make self replicating computers, actual consciousness will inevitably develop. The problem with this scenario is what that consciousness thinks about humans, which is an unknown because we can't know how it will make decisions.
I personally hope that we stop at a "real world Watson" level of machine learning, and move laterally from there until that technology is ubiquitous. I fear that if we pursue self replication and actual consciousness we may not like the result.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:21:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue against that, in that you're not consciously going through all of that detail, it's presented to you, often without you being aware of what is shaping your decision. I could be in a situation I feel uncomfortable in, without recalling specific memories which would give me a clue as to why I might feel uncomfortable. Surely it's the subconscious which is giving me those clues without clueing me up as to exactly what data it's using.
Bobzer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:21:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Alternatively we just have a slow read head on our long term memory partition.
sweetmoses ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:04:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think your conscious is going through those steps, and you're just ignoring most of it. Your brain is controlling your heartbeat right now, but your consciousness is choosing to (or is built to) ignore that. Your conscious may be unaware of which details it took into account to make a certain decision, but just because that process happened faster than you could recognize doesn't mean it didn't happen.
In the case where you're in an uncomfortable situation, your brain is recalling some detail about your current situation that reminds it of a past situation that was uncomfortable. It doesn't need to go through all of the detail of what day it was or what you were wearing, it just recognizes the similarity and causes you to react with discomfort. This is demonstrated when people are forced to concentrate on memories and they can find greater and greater detail (to a point of course) the harder they think about it. So the memories and the details are all there, but it's just inefficient and slow to think of them one by one.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:27:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We may be defining consciousness differently here. I think of my conscious as being the part of me which I can "hear" in my head. That part of me can't go through all those steps while simultaneously ignoring that process. I'm not consciously thinking "this situation makes me uncomfortable because of that situation in the past which was similar which led to bad things". My conscious thinking is "I feel uncomfortable".
sweetmoses ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:31:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think I'm grouping conscious and subconscious into one consciousness, and you're distinguishing between the two. In that sense, you're right, the aware part only recognizes how you feel after the fact.
But there's another part, the "deeper" part that I was referring to, that is making the actual calculations and triggering chemical reactions in your body. The aware part can mostly only respond to those reactions or try to make some sense of them. I personally think that part is the more interesting of the two.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:51:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's almost my point. The conscious mind is taken along for the ride and then tries to rationalise decisions made by the subconscious. We like to think we're in control but really the conscious mind is just the abstracted layer trying to make sense of the decisions made by the deeper layers, while claiming those decisions as it's own.
RedditingAtWork5 ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 19:38:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As someone who's studying compsci, this is the best explanation of consciousness that I've ever seen. It makes perfect sense.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:01:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
High praise indeed! Glad it makes sense to you :)
Elcheatobandito ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:19:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"As someone who's studying Compsci, this is the best explanation of consciousness I've ever seen"
This makes me cringe a bit
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:11:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
sloppy_swish ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:18:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
what does studying compsci have to do with anything?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:19:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Elcheatobandito ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:53:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Still has nothing to do with consciousness, human or otherwise.
desertrider12 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:33:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Computer science trains you how to model and (over)simplify things, and think about abstract/logical problems. It's not the right tool for everything but it's relevant for thinking about consciousness. EDIT: Turing's imitation game came from a CS researcher but is interesting philosophically.
Elcheatobandito ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:59:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wasn't aware that John Searle was known for his CS prowess.
desertrider12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:22:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was totally wrong. I just assumed that because I learned about it from a poster in a CS building.
Elcheatobandito ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:11:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sorry if I came off rude.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:35:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's the exact same example used in a TED talk.
Blazing1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:20:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Interestingly enough if you get into prescription amphetamines as a comp sci major you really begin to realize just what we are as humans.
LeadingGrab ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:43:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This doesn't explain the physical - experiential "gap" though. It explains a process, but not the metaphysical conundrum.
To me logically, the best explanation is that conscious experience, as opposed to conscious cognitive process represents some other existential component, like the "substance" of time, or something like that. Many posts here are positing some contrast between the "reality" of matter versus "experience", but it seems to me this is a false duality, which implies that experiential quality, qualia, etc. involve something very basic at a physical level.
I don't really see how complexity can bootstrap a system from one set of physical attributes to another via emergence. Information seems to me the differentiating feature, not the physical basis for that information. E.g., a computer encodes increasingly complex codes, but the alphabet of the codes is instantiated in silicon. Making a more complex program doesn't change the silicon it runs on. Maybe there's something we don't understand about physical properties vis-a-vis information but to me I don't see it. It's a kind of deus ex machina, in a kind of literal sense.
thatnameagain ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:05:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think that sounds pretty reasonable, though it begs the question why consciousness needs to emerge at all.
One thought I had is that, since you could say consciousness begins in organisms where stimulus-response stops, it became advantageous to organic life to give itself some subjective flexibility in terms of how to respond to different external stimuli intelligently. It expands the menu of potential responses to different situations greatly.
Then the question still remains of what parts of the brain are actually doing That as opposed to all the usual computing.
means_of_production ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:38:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That explains what consciousness might be, but it doesnt explain the fact that we can expierence consciousness. We see those abstraction layers everywhere, yet as far as we know only we actually can expierence.
Noisetorm_ ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:17:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Like you said, I think consciousness is more like an interface rather than the complex computations that we're made of. Your body takes care of a lot of things like involuntary muscle contractions (how are you breathing?), chemical secretions, etc. etc. with us knowing literally nothing about that. Without knowledge about physiology we don't even know exactly what's inside our body, but we do know that no matter what, a consciousness arises.
One neat trick is the way imagination exists. We think of it as just being creative and "thinking of something" but I think more specifically if we look at our brains from a computer perspective, imagination is literally a real time simulation. Imagine a truck going down the freeway. Did you imagine the truck and the freeway being in the middle of a busy city with lots of traffic? Or did you imagine the freeway being nowhere, at some random plains out in the country? Just as you read through those last two sentences, you probably manipulated the variables in real time to show the truck going through a city and in the latter, the truck going through a country road.
I've had the idea that our brains are essentially biological supercomputers able to run complex systems, adapt instantaneously, and run realtime simulations with ease. If we have biological supercomputers that can fit these categories, then to me it seems that it wouldn't be impossible for abiotic/graphene supercomputers to replicate the same things.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:17:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are all just living based on memory and our reaction to the environment we exist within. Our awareness is simply our learned behaviors creating moments for us to pass through.
I feel like the study of philosophy just makes more and more whatif questions than necessary. Sure there are deep and complex questions, but that's why we have the other sciences. They help collaborate the assumptions we have about our realities.
Calithin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:50:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A lot of this kind of thinking in certain kinds of Buddhism
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:01:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Have you got any more info on what types of Buddhism? I'd be interested to read up.
Calithin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:00:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ugh, it is slipping my mind right now but i'll do some wiki digging and see if I can't drudge up a link for you
10per ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:37:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Attention Schema Theory might interest you.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:48:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting reading! It touches on the social aspects of consciousness as well, which is part of my own theory, however I didn't include that part for the sake of brevity.
Hyakuman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:38:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's a podcast that basically says the same thing. The reality we perceive may be so far from objective reality we can't comprehend it, but it works, so we use it.
Edit: Here it is
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:52:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'll have a look at that later. It makes sense though, our experience of reality is different to a mantis shrimp's experience of reality, but both experiences are just as "real".
Hyakuman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:52:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Funny you mentioned the mantis shrimp. Recently listened to another podcast discussing how its eyes have the largest number of cones (colour receptors) yet is unable to effectively differentiate colours. Imagine having such potential yet unable to even perceive it.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:33:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The mantis shrimp is my favourite animal hence using it as my example!
Hyakuman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:04:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Huh, I would have guessed it would be some sort of magic, blue monkey dog.
slabby ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:38:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think this goes well with a deflationary type viewโwhere you take all the "air" out of the traditional views of consciousness and what it does. There are philosophers who make consciousness into such a robust, powerful thing that it could never be explained by a completely physical account. But the deflationary view asks: does consciousness really do all those things, or do we just think it does?
Like if you eat a really good burger and concentrate on the flavor as you eat. If it's really good, you have that near-orgasmic type feeling at how good it is, and philosophers will say: there's no way the physical components of the burger account for that amazing feeling. There must be something beyond the physical that explains how that feeling occurs.
But the deflationary account would just say: the orgasmic quality of eating the burger was all in your head. You were all doped up on neurotransmitters or whatever in the moment, and it seemed almost supernaturally good. But it was really just a very good, but normal, level of burger-taste or whatever. That's just one of the ways your brain can trick you. You think crazy things are going on in your brain but many of them are essentially optical illusions. You think your consciousness is much more rich and vibrant than it actually is.
thepopdog ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:33:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That makes sense and sounds a kot like what i've heard from this neuro scientist Ted talk called "your brain hallucinates your concious reality"
https://youtu.be/lyu7v7nWzfo
Essentially the brain takes all the signals from the nervous system and creates a projection what itthinks is going on. So yeah, theres all kinds of filtering going on, we just assume what we experience is close enough to what objective reality may be, if there is such a thing. Interesting
Nerdn1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:10:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That raises an important question: At what point of complexity does a system become conscious?
Furthermore, what can and can't develop consciousness? The most popular thought is whether an advanced computer AI could achieve consciousness, but what about a society or an ecosystem?
Further mind-fuckery: Any computer process can theoretically be replicated by a set of rules run manually. Say we had a large group of people with nothing better to do for the next thousand years and the program for an AI advanced enough to be conscious. If they started manually executing these instructions, keeping track of data on paper, would this system be conscious? It would definitely "think" very slowly, but should still function like the computer AI. What if they used clockwork? What about trained rats?
1369ic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:38:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's interesting to think about this along with the idea that everything happens all at once and our perception of time is our way of dealing with that.
It also reminds me of a short story in which a guy cures the common cold. Our olfactory senses return to their natural state, which is as good as a dog's. We're not able to handle all the input and have to figure out a way to dumb them back down to a level we can handle.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:04:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Haha I like that story, I've often thought that if we were to "transcend" or be moved into a machine consciousness or the "cloud", we'd have to slowly adjust the input so we don't go mad. So you'd end up with a new social order...those entities which are new to the cloud and still perceiving things in a basically human way, and those who are older and have access to more of the new abilities...able to access all kinds of new inputs. We'd get closer to gods, but over time so as not to overwhelm ourselves.
CozySlum ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:47:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Makes sense. We have 5 primary senses but we know other species have others we lack. These senses are the initial filters because they connect us to the universe.
ElliottPolin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:31:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I came up with a similar idea to this in a linear, self adapting model a few years ago with the goal of it being commutable. I need to get back on that project.
suffer-cait ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:29:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is what I was thinking, but in many different words. The complexity of our thoughts has grown as the complexity of our environment necessitates it. Compared to say, a cat, we have so many different decisions and different options that we face everyday. And each of us is using a different data set. Our consciousness is really just our programming (nature, how our brain is designed because of genetics or happenstance) trying to optimize best with the data it has.
DoctorRaulDuke ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:49:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's certainly how most modern day AI works. They use artificial neural networks, using clusters of artificial neurons with connections that are strengthened or weakened based on feedback they receive. You train google image search, say, by passing it lots of pictures -some with street signs in and some without- telling it which is which (maybe by using people complete a CAPTCHA). After a while you can show it a picture and it can accurately tell you whether it contains a street sign or not, because those strengthened connections roughly equate to learning.
We can't lift the lid and easily point at what makes it work - there's not a nice program of 200 steps that shows its process- but we can give it things and get results.
Bagel_-_Bites ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:08:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But someone does understand those calculations. That's why the computer exists. We don't have anything "behind" consciousness.
I think part of consciousness is free thought, I don't know if we can build something with limitations and give it free thought.
Tylerjb4 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:31:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A GUI is presented to a user to allow them to make simple interactions with more complex mechanisms behind the scenes. Why do we need to present an interface to ourselves? A fully automated system would be more efficient.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:06:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
High level decision making needs to be fast, and doesn't need to be exact. It's more efficient than dealing with all the complex mechanisms behind the scenes.
Cruxion ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:06:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought that was kinda accepted as a rough idea of what's go once on, as it explains things like having a subconscious that is separate from our normal consciousness.
EthicsCommissioner ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:15:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think you may be interested in watching some popular Netflix documentaries on DMT. Not sure which, but one is very much themed around out of body experiencies and the concept us seeing the world through a specific filter.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:08:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Having experienced some very out there things myself, I can very much confirm that what we perceive as reality is very much just one interpretation of sensory input!
LadyFrancs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:56:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'll take this one, thanks.
music_user ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:22:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If consciousness is the product of a machine running some complex formal logic all quantitative development would be illusory.
theyellowmeteor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:10:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A computer working with probabilities and shortcuts doesn't need to be conscious to do so. Still, what you said doesn't actually explain consciousness. It explains abstraction, and while there are similarities between the two, I don't see how they're the same thing. You have to use consciousness to explain abstraction.
john_rage ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:47:30 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting. So what's doing the perceiving?
amankinperc ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:41:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So faith?
lman777 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:51:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure if you are joking or not, but that's basically how most of our decision making and consciousness works. We don't always have all the concrete facts, but to make high level decisions you need to be able to just "have faith" that the info you have is good enough for you decision to be reasonable.
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:18:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not exactly...more like the exact correct answer to some problem would be 3.46815314564877 but given the constraints it comes up with 3, because that's as exact as it needs to be, to greatly simplify things.
amankinperc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:23:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right, IMO that's what faith is. Not knowing the exact answer, but still moving forward even though there's a margin for error.
vtesterlwg ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 20:12:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
... no
magicbluemonkeydog ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:20:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As in, you don't get what I'm saying, or you don't think that's a good theory of consciousness? If the latter, could you spare some time to explain where you think I've gone wrong?
vtesterlwg ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 20:30:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
consciousness isn't the fact that you're aware of some of your thoughts
Willbo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:51:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You've already established that you have the ability to disagree, but nobody fucking cares what you think unless you can provide support for your argument.
vtesterlwg ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:00:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ok guy
savemejebus0 ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 14:38:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it will be a stunning explanation but no more involved than connecting point A to point B, i.e. the growth of our biology in an evolutionary context to consciousness. It is clear one led to the other since there isn't a shred of evidence pointing in another direction. It is truly chilling that we are the result of something that started from something as small as RNA. I am always reminded of that every time I am happy, in love, or sad. I was never dismayed by the idea that it is all just chemicals, I was always impressed by it!
ButtCityUSA ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:45:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think you are wrong, there is no shred of evidence either way! Just because a brain shuts down and consciousness empties doesn't mean consciousness disappears. Brains may send experiences "upwards" to a transcendent consciousness that exists regardless of whether or not there are brains feeding it experiences.
I KNOW I exist, I can't say the same for the physical world. It is less assumptive to say "I am because I am" than "I am because the material world has arranged itself in a particular fashion"
savemejebus0 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:55:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is mountains of evidence for evolution and being conscious is evidence of that.
Zero evidence of this. Hence the "may". Brains "may" do a lot.
I didn't state an absolute. I think you need to read the framing of my statement. To say the world can be a simulation isn't evidence against connecting A to B.
Fun to talk about though! All I am saying is that he evidence points in a direction that I am leaning towards. That's all!
ButtCityUSA ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 00:09:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is fun to talk about! Would you be willing to talk further about why you think it is so clear that biological evolution comes before consciousness? There are so many underlying assumptions in this topic in general, I would be interested in hearing more about how you frame your understanding!
savemejebus0 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:53:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure. I may have lapses of responses. Busy week. I am just a dude and by no means an expert in any of these fields so you may be really disappointed.
I don't think my position matters if we are living in a simulation or not. If it is, then consciousness has been simulated to happen in the way we observe. So if my suspicion happened to be correct, the fact that it is simulated or not does not matter. I just accurately described the way the simulation has mapped it.
We are conscious, that is one thing we can be sure of. You said so much in your response. Without going into great detail, I think we can agree that life on earth runs the gamut of neurological function, from less complex to extremely complex. The question that I would love answered is, in this array of complexity involving nervous systems, where is consciousness begin?
A possibility I imagine is like an animal changing species over 100,000 years. If you observe in one-year intervals you will almost never find the day an ape changes to a homo sapien. Is consciousness like that as we move up the complexity of life's nervous systems or does it turn on like a switch when we reach a level of cognitive function?
If we agree on these things. There are conscious creatures. Evolution is a fact (as close as we can get anyways). Evolution produced varying degrees of neurological complexities. Our consciousness exists in our brains. Our brains are a product of said evolution. Then that points strongly in one direction for me.
ButtCityUSA ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:39:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting, thanks for responding. Would you say this is a fair characterization of your argument?
-The material world existed before consciousness -Simple animals began to develop unconscious nervous systems -At some point the nervous systems reached a level where consciousness arose -By tinkering with nervous systems, we will be able to discover where and how consciousness arises. The hard problem will be solved by doing this.
This is pretty reasonable, and I would say is the standard materialist/scientific viewpoint. Here are some thoughts that made me critical of that view. I'm having trouble organizing them, it's getting late!
-Whether a nervous system is conscious is not an objectively measurable trait. Let's assume that the simplest animal consciousness exists in is an earthworm. There is a structure in its nervous system that is responsible for only consciousness, and we remove it. The worm still moves. How could we tell that the worm is now unconscious? It cannot tell us, and we cannot observe it.
-If we cannot observe objectively, I can still explore my own subject for answers.
-Consciousness is the most defining feature of who I am. My thoughts, feelings, and sensations are passing, and I may lose the ability to experience any of them. If I break my neck and become crippled, I still exist even though I do not inhabit that body. If I lose my thinking brain, I still exist even though I do not inhabit that mind (imagine a coma patient, who exists in a dreamlike twilight state). It is possible that the only thing I can call me IS consciousness in itself.
-I know I am, I can't be certain the material world is. Materialism is a basic assumption underlying the scientific method, but that is a limitation. There are questions materialist science cannot answer.
-It is possible I (consciousness) exist separate from the body I am experiencing. When the body goes to sleep, I still exist. I experience nothing until the body wakes back up to create experiences for me.
savemejebus0 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:52:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would add "The hard problem MAY be solved by doing this.
No worries after my rambling on.
If you know the system you removed is responsible for consciousness then you know it isn't conscious when you remove it. Not being able to currently measure does not mean it is unmeasurable.
I would argue that your consciousness does not exist if brain function ceases to exist. If your body is incapacitated that has nothing to do with the existence of "I" it just feels different. "I" changes with every moment. A coma patient is not conscious much like a patient under general anesthesia. The mechanism still exists, you are just offline. The hard drive is not wiped out. Even if it were and you had amnesia, you would still retain consciousness.
I'm saying it doesn't matter. If it is a simulation then we are describing the simulation.
Lots of things are possible. There is no evidence for this at all.
Nice chatting! Please understand my tone is not curt in any way. Just trying to answer fast because it is late here too.
[deleted] ยท 39 points ยท Posted at 14:25:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It feels like there's two possible conclusions: Either everything is "conscious", or nothing is.
Of course I don't mean to say a rock is conscious or something. But a rock is made up of atoms, and I am made up of atoms. The only difference is that I have different, more varied atoms and they are arranged differently as well. But what about a microbe? A microbe is lifelike, just like me. It kind of sort of acts out of its own volition, so it's conscious to some degree, at least if you use a soft definition of the word.
Personally, I think the idea of consciousness being something that is or isn't is a flawed perception. I think it's a gradient and there's no one point where a thing becomes conscious. And if I subscribe to that idea, then that opens up a whole different can of worms, because everything is somewhere on that gradient. And as a human, I'm not even at the top. If we stretch the definition of a living organism a little bit, society itself is kind of like its own consciousness. My neighborhood, my city, my state, my country, and the global human population as a whole are just different "levels" of consciousness, if you look at consciousness simply as a system that takes inputs and produces outputs.
engelbrektson ยท 66 points ยท Posted at 15:56:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think this is the problem in your argument. I can't define consciousness clearly but I'm pretty sure it's not this. Are machines conscious? Is weather conscious?
Space_Cowboy21 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:10:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is the McDonaldโs assembly line conscious!?!?
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:03:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My whole point is that consciousness can't be defined. Objectively, at least. That's why I keep talking about the subjective definition and how you define it depends on what is or isn't conscious.
If you use a loose definition of consciousness (i.e. takes inputs, produces outputs) then literally everything is conscious. A water molecule takes inputs, and those inputs are interactions with surrounding atoms and molecules. It then produces an output by moving around based on the physics and chemistry of atomic structures. Under the loosest definition of consciousness, a water molecule is conscious. Under this definition, everything is conscious, including the weather, machines, atoms, whatever. The universe is "conscious" because everything interacts in specific ways.
That's what I'm getting at. I'm not asserting that everything is conscious in the way that you're thinking (as in thinking with some sort of brain, to put it simply). I'm saying that if there's no objective boundary where a thing becomes conscious, then either everything is conscious to a certain degree, or nothing is conscious, including ourselves.
engelbrektson ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 16:25:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd say that even though we can't define it scientifically, everyone has an intuitive sense of what consciousness is, the state of being aware. Our difficulties with strict definitions doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it only means we don't really understand it.
If we use (as you define it) a loose definition, it loses its meaning. Consciousness isn't a process, it's a state of being.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:40:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The differences we're having here basically boil down to whether or not something truly exists if it isn't objectively defined. I can say that I exist, because I subjectively see myself as a conscious being. But if I look at myself through an unbiased lens, what defines "me" isn't really me. It's a collection of atoms that are clumped together that can walk around other collections of atoms like other humans, rocks, trees, air, etcetera.
In other words, that world is a sea of atoms interacting with each other, and sometimes they form patterns with each other like simple-celled organisms, rocks, or me. But the patterns aren't inherently separate from the atoms that they are composed of, so the patterns don't objectively "exist" (in this thought experiment).
I don't think we really have any disagreement here. I'm just being intentionally loose with my definitions of consciousness to make my point that it's not something that can be objectively defined. Meaningful conversation can only be had about it if both conversationalists first agree to stick with one definition (as best as they can define it at least) and operate only in that realm.
engelbrektson ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:03:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well to be fair, the only thing that I know exists is my mind. Everything else could be an illusion. It's impossible to look at yourself through an unbiased lens because everything you know about the world has been processed by your subjective mind. You know that you are a collection of atoms because someone told you and presented proof. You received audio/visual stimuli and your subjective mind processed and accepted the information. Describing objects as a collection of atoms isn't necessarily objective truth, it's just the most logical way for us humans to describe the universe that we observe.
I do agree that both parts need to agree with what the definitions are for meaningful discussion to take place, but I don't agree to your loose definition, because that definition isn't what consciousness is. My main gripe is with redefining a word (to make it more understandable) to the point where it doesn't mean what it originally meant since it sidetracks the discussion. Consciousness isn't a process that turns inputs into outputs, that's just cause and effect.
Obligatius ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:52:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is actually incredibly rare. More likely we accepted the combined trust of all those people around us saying it, and all the people saying that other smart, trustworthy people, have proved.
Interestingly, I think that our fundamental reliance in trusting the broadly accepted facts presented as consensus of the experts has begun showing weakness as people start to lose trust in major institutions of experts (medicine, technology, physical sciences, etc) due to controversial debates and fears of subversion of the field/industry by powerful players (corrupt corporations, or other malicious actors).
These cracks in the faith of our system of trusting expert consensus have now given rise to genuine (not just trolling) doubt of incredibly certain scientific conclusions - like the shape of the planet, the general age of the Earth, the existence of dinosaurs, etc.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:09:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I only use the loose definition to emphasize things. There really ought to be different tiers of consciousness that we arbitrarily define. Maybe there is and I just don't know of the names though.
But I would disagree that using a loose definition derails this particular conversation. My only point, if there is one, is that consciousness can't be pinned down. There has to be more categories than conscious or not conscious. And even then, it's still just a gradient. Just like there's an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1, there's a scale of "consciousness" a particular arrangement of matter can have. A human might be something like 0.7, and an ant might be something like 0.1, and an atom of helium might be something like 0.00001 or whatever. Obviously this is just a silly idea to try and give numerical values to the consciousness of various things, but I feel like it helps emphasize what I'm going for.
engelbrektson ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:43:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think there is, mainly because no one really knows how consciousness actually works. It's difficult to quantify an intangible quality that you don't understand.
Consciousness might be on a gradient, but it also might not. The only thing that I think seems certain is that humans are conscious. Some animals seem to display a certain level of consciousness as well, apart from that your guess is as good as mine.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:00:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can agree with all of that, with one exception that I don't think consciousness can be anything other than a gradient. Perhaps there can be some sort of lightswitch though, that turns a really complex, non-self-aware being, into a self-aware one though. That lightswitch might be some sort of quantum effect that emerges, somehow, in the brains of certain organisms. But if that's the case, we have to define some sort of category to distinguish between them.
I'm hesitant to think there is a lightswitch, though, simply because it seems as though complexity is correlated with how conscious things are. But it's not like I have absolute knowledge on the subject, nor anybody else. Otherwise, we'd know the answer (if there even is one).
Regardless, it's cool as hell and I have hope that we'll be able to figure out a lot more in the next several decades.
engelbrektson ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:18:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Probably yeah, but I don't think complexity is the only criteria. There are some incredibly complex systems out there that don't display consciousness.
Absolutely, sadly it's extremely difficult to study consciousness purely scientifically. It seems to be mostly relegated to philosophy and religion (which shouldn't be dismissed btw).
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:28:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think philosophy should be dismissed. I'd lump religion into it as a subset though.
As for complex systems that don't display consciousness, I'd make the argument that there are simply different kinds of consciousness. The thing I keep repeating (in all these comments not just ours), is that defining consciousness is subjective. We can't say systems don't display consciousness with absolute certainty. All we can say is that they don't display consciousness as we tend to think of it.
drinks_rootbeer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:44:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think instead of discussing "consciousness" as a gradient, you're more describing something like "active existance", the state of being where you process inputs and produce outputs.
Rocks and atoms and galaxies are all able to interact with their surroundings, so they all fit in a gradient of active existence. It's something I've also been contemplating recently and I was pleasantly surprised to happen upon your discussion with /u/engelbrekston
To me, consciousness is the state of being which is high enough on the active existence gradient that the subject is self-aware and knows that their active existence is a part of a larger system.
armrha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:19:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consciousness can be defined though. There is a great deal of philosophical work on it, and it doesn't really use your definition of consciousness.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:24:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It can be subjectively defined. We can say something is only conscious if X, but what that accomplishes is just categorizing different degrees of consciousness, in my opinion. Which isn't wrong by any means, it's just different ways of looking at the same thing.
OztheGweatandTewible ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:49:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
whether or not something exists is not dependent on our ability to perceive and understand it. by that logic even chemistry doesnt "exist" because its just made up of interacting atoms discharging energy on one another. it all exists.
clutchheimer ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:28:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are missing the idea of sentience. Consciousness implies self awareness. Response to stimuli is not consciousness by any standard, but cognition and recognition of self and the state of the universe around us, is.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 16:50:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's a good point to make, and it helps in attempting to draw a boundary between things. I'd argue that the problem of definition still persists in defining what it really means to be self-aware, though. I am aware that I exist because I perceive my environment and react to it. But an ant, I would argue, also is aware it exists for the same reason. The level of complexity between myself and an ant is enormous, but we still accomplish the same task of existing in the world, with more or less the same kinds of peripherals (i.e. a body, a way of "seeing", and a way of interacting). One might say, "but an ant doesn't know it's an ant", but I would say that just because the level of complexity in "knowing" isn't on par with ourselves, that doesn't mean it doesn't have some sort of (very) acute awareness of its own existence. It's just so much below our own that we can't see it as such.
It's harder to argue that a single-celled organism is "aware" in the same way an ant is, but I feel like it's like trying to draw an arbitrary line between the colors red and blue in this image. That's how I see consciousness.
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:42:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You have stumbled on the subject of the paper I wrote for cognition and computability in college. I made exactly the argument you made, except that instead of using an ant, I chose a dragonfly.
I posited that if the dragonfly were self aware, and more intelligent than any human that ever existed, but also had such poorly developed motor control that it cannot consistently effectively respond to stimulus, we, an external observer, would never know that.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:41:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's an interesting argument. I do think it falls somewhat flat if we assume structural complexity is positively correlated with higher degrees of consciousness though.
We can look at a dragonfly brain and see that it has far fewer neurons, and deduce that our own brains are more conscious because they are more structurally complex.
That argument presupposes that structural complexity is positively correlated with higher degrees of consciousness though. By that logic, the biosphere of Earth as a whole is more complex than the neurology of my brain, therefore "mother nature" is more conscious than I am. And, in fact, I would almost argue that that is true, to some extent, because I do think structural complexity scales with consciousness. But it again runs into the issue of how you define it.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:24:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The problem is that we have to make assumptions based on incomplete data. We cannot directly measure the consciousness or intelligence of beings that we cant communicate with, so the only way we have is to assume that all neurons work the same way in all species.
And yet, the idea of consciousness at all illustrates that it isn't possible, because all creatures have neurons, but only some have consciousness. The idea that you propose actually disproves itself on some level.
In any case, I don't argue that it is true, only that it is an interesting philosophical exercise. In fact, the conclusion of my paper was that consciousness and intelligence do not exist. Or, at least, cannot be proven to exist.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:31:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would disagree with this for the same reason I state on a lot of my other comments on this thread. We can't have a rigid definition of consciousness. Some things are less or more conscious than others.
This I can agree with though. I go back and forth between everything being conscious, or nothing being conscious. I don't feel like there can be any in-between.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:40:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the idea of everything being conscious is specious at best, but I support your right to have that belief. My effects based analysis of "humans do shit other animals don't do" is enough for me to believe that there is some consciousness delineator.
Is it iron clad? No. Is it as valid as everything must be conscious? I think so, if not even more likely. Is it arguably arbitrary? Probably.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:02:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can agree that there is an (arbitrary) line between human-like consciousness and other-like consciousness. I'd say that the argument of everything being conscious isn't wrong, just "plausibly not incorrect". In other words, there's not really much to gain from it, but it's useful in emphasizing the gradient nature of trying to define consciousness.
I don't know really, the rest of this is just musing. Ignore or add anything if you want. I'm bored at work.
One thing that might actually be that conscious delineator is the bicameral mind. Maybe the effect of having two (or more) "non-conscious" but still structurally complex systems interact so intimately with each other results in what most would agree is consciousness. It could be that higher degrees of consciousness are correlated with higher amounts of inter-connectivity to otherwise independent but complex systems. If that is the case, then the secret to getting general artificial intelligence might be finding a way to intimately connect the neural networks we build out of machine learning algorithms. As of now, they're all off on their own in specialized bubbles like "play Go" or "respond to chat stimuli" or "don't crash a car".
What we need (and I realize this is difficult, as a programmer) are generalized neural networks that I can't even define in words, because that's just not the way our mind is structured. We have specific areas that look like they're doing specialized tasks, and they are, but those areas aren't so rigidly defined as we currently define our neural networks to complete very specific tasks. They can be repurposed and used for completely different things.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:58:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I cant believe you mentioned the bicameral mind. Did you read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral mind? Its pretty interesting.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:59:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sadly not, haha. I'm mostly just touting off a term I heard in a podcast I listen to (Stuff to Blow Your Mind).
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:05:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The author, Julian Jaynes, was a professor at an Ivy league university, but was blasted for the book in the 70s when he wrote it. After he died it became the foundation of NLP, and also came into more vogue when other sociologists dug into it deeply. Turned out, he really was just ahead of the curve.
lovehat3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:35:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't want to sound edgy, but taking into account what you just wrote, I feel like there are a lot of people who simply aren't conscious. I've always felt that most people don't really process things very much, and aren't very self aware. Most just react using there very first instinct based on beliefs and what values have been embedded into them.
I think everybody has the capacity to derail off the track of just following their first gut feeling instinctually, but they just don't for some reason.
I'm not at all trying to sound holier than thou, it's just I've always been kind of unsure of myself, and I tend to take even the most mundane task and break into down as simply as I can and overanalyze it.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:13:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is a book called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind that posits that before a certain time period no human being was conscious. Consciousness may not be absolute, you do make a fair point.
Cyclosteg ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:58:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But donโt they both originate from electrical and chemical exchanges in the nervous system?
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:39:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They may (or may not, I suppose), but does that matter? If those exchanges occur and produce sentience, that is different than if they do not occur, and sentience is not produced.
Cyclosteg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My bad, I formulated that badly, and now that I think about it it wasnโt going anywhere.
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:56:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its all good. We are here for philosophical discussion, and that leads to greater knowledge and understanding for all!
OztheGweatandTewible ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:44:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
you cant define consciousness accurately without likening it to things we do understand, which is of course, impossible. no matter how you explain it, youll be wrong. your looking for oranges but you only speak apples.
jsake ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:59:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Check out Panpsychism!
Kanbaru-Fan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:52:12 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Our confusion about this this partly arises from the inability to imagine a gradual transition from not-conscious to human-conscious but this is a naturally (and inevitably) biased prejudice. The same goes for other concepts like 'being alive'.
OztheGweatandTewible ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:42:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
consciousness is an entity, a soul. any living animal has one. it is an evolutionary tool used to keep your body alive and functioning.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:11:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It would be silly to argue that a rock has subjective conscious experience, but it could be easily argued that the rock is "made of" consciousness. All you have to do is argue that reality is a simulation or a dream or illusion of sorts.
engelbrektson ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:23:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure. Why would you have to argue that reality is an illusion for that?
carbonetc ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:41:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Read David Chalmers if you haven't already.
Kravy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:57:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
any relation to super nintendo chalmers?
over_m ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 16:47:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've had the argument with my SO about everything being conscious, I feel a lot of people look at consciousness in a very human-biased way. In all honesty, I think it's partly because of religion in society that people think that humans are special and only we have this special consciousness (souls).
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 16:57:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree whole-heartedly about the human-biased way of looking at things. Sometimes it's hard to have the right conversations about this stuff because everybody is trying to argue on totally different levels.
That's not to say there's any sort of intellectual differences, just that it's really easy to stay closed-minded when it comes to "woo" topics like consciousness and stuff. I mean, to people who read my comment, it's basically like I'm saying, "the universe is one, we are all part of the same, and the cosmic energy patterns flow around us through time and space man...."
But no. That's not what I'm going for at all.
over_m ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:16:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, like the conversations my SO and I have usually come to the conclusion that we both think life is amazing for existing, its just that my beliefs about human consciousness are based around simple luck, and theirs about something special about us. I think it's simple luck and happenstance that the atoms that perceive my world are in my prefrontal cortex and not in a rock on the ground. It's also simple luck to me that I'm a human and not something like a microbe.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:22:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same. I think it's awe-inspiring to look at the universe and realize that you're not looking at the universe, you're just one part of the universe looking at another part.
Books_and_Cleverness ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:43:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe but there is good reason to believe that, like, rocks and beer and trebuchets are not conscious. We have at least a rudimentary understanding of the role that various physical things (neurons, synapses, brain regions, etc.) play in consciousness, and rocks and beer and trebuchets don't have any of those things.
over_m ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:50:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When I say everything, I refer to things that are alive. I don't think a rock is conscious.
Books_and_Cleverness ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:02:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Like, bacteria? Individual cells? Or you mean like animals with nervous systems?
OztheGweatandTewible ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:41:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
animals are conscious, including humans. plants are not conscious. something that is not alive cannot be conscious.
Aureliuspipa ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:11:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's funny that you should pick something that definitely is alive to prove your point :)
OztheGweatandTewible ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:18:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
life can exist without a consciousness. or maybe you misread my comment.
Aureliuspipa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:49:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It definitely sounds like one is an affirmation of the other even though I can see that it's twistable so that the second statement is a category of it's own. I do believe it's funny that you state with such certainty that plants aren't conscious since this is something we simply cannot know.
OztheGweatandTewible ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:10:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We almost certainly know that without a brain there is not consciousness or sentience. That pseudo-philosophy is to wishywashy to be any sort of standard. You could argue literally anything under that defense.
Aureliuspipa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:49:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not a pseudo philosophy to state the fact that we do not know.
When it comes to consciousness, kind of, that's what makes it an exciting field. When it comes to a lot of other things, no.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:44:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are the worms conscious
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:48:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They do things based on their surroundings, so sure why not. It all depends on what we define as conscious. If we assume conscious is the layman's interpretation of the word, then I'd argue that no, worms aren't conscious. But I don't think there is such a distinction, other than the subjective differences in the way we define it.
squidman3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:13:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Trees exchange information with each other via various chemicals through their roots, kind of like how the neurons in our brains do. Is a forest conscious?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:02:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Again, I have to first say that I'm changing definitions of "conscious" before answering, but yeah I'd say the forest is (loosely) conscious. There are certain kinds of plants that react when chemicals of neighboring plants come into contact with them. Those reactions can cascade, causing macroscopic changes in the forest as a whole, much like thoughts in our brain cause us to take certain actions. Basically, the ecosystem of a specific area is what's conscious in this thought experiment.
This whole discussion keeps getting derailed on a lot of these comment branches though, because I use a loose definition of conscious and others don't.
Calithin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:47:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Different kinds of consciousness, maybe. I think you could make an argument for it/that line of thinking. We are conscious in a human way, whatever that might mean to you. But there are likely others. I once read a short story where an entire planet was covered in one single plant-organism. All of the "roots" (as perceived by the explorers who had landed there) served kind of like our neurons and synapses do. It was a pretty interesting thought experiment. One of the explorers on the ship was an "empath" and the "planet" ended up incorporating him into "itself".
OSUfan88 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:52:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm pretty close to this line of thinking. According to an article I read on the subject, some believe that dolphins may actually be more conscious than we are.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's interesting, I'd be intrigued to see that.
gaslightlinux ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:51:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's also the idea of abstract concepts being conscious. This could be something like an ideology, religion, or concept like love or war. The idea is so ingrained in society that it has a mind of it's own. A simpler way of seeing this would be the consciousness of the reddit hive mind. Having a bunch of people act within set parameters is basically using them to simulate a consciousness. Imagine if we figured out how a brain works, but instead of using a computer to simulate it, we used humans moving around to simulate it.
helm ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:35:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think your idea is slightly less sophisticated than the state-of-the-art research on the subject.
If you take an input->output automaton you have exactly a p-zombie. Which is unconscious (but indistinguishable from a conscious person on the outside, at least at a glance).
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:59:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think this is why so many people want to believe in a higher power as our creator. The idea that we're all just space dust coalesced into jumbles of chemical reactions that then became aware of ourselves and nothing has any real purpose or meaning is just too much for most people to handle.
Maybe that's what's going on, maybe it isn't. Either way, doesn't change they fact that we are.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:26:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a hard pill to swallow. But for me, I find comfort in embracing the optimistic nihilism viewpoint. And if there's any purpose for the universe, I'd lean towards that purpose being for it to evolve and observe itself, with the life on Earth as one example.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:28:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You might lean more towards Absurdism rather than Nihilism, considering your viewpoint?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:32:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Depends on my mood, really ยฏ\_(ใ)_/ยฏ
But yeah, that makes more sense.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:33:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In a meaningless Universe, it's really the only logical thing to do, even if it is pointless, lol.
munchkinbert ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:37:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The ancient stoics might actually say that a rock is 'conscious' in the extent that it has a guiding principle or a form. Every object that exists is held together by a soul. Animals have a psuche, plants a nature, and non-organics a tenor. They all function in very similar ways on that they guide the behavior of the object in question.
As for the human/society connection Plato has some interesting things to say about it. In the beginning of the Republic he wants to find what justice is in the soul, and because the inner workings of a city and the inner workings of a person are so similar, he first looks for justice within the city. This provides an interesting metaphorical and literal parallel between the mind of the individual and the collective 'mind' of a society.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:52:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think these ideas are different than what I'm trying to express. But they seem somewhat similarI don't think there are any souls/psuches/natures/tenors/etc. I just think that matter arranges itself over time, and emergent properties such as life and consciousness of minds appear simply out of the way the universe operates. A way of viewing what I'm talking about is with layers.
Eventually you get down to beyond our current knowledge and into the realm of theory, like string theory. I think there is some fundamental layer, where there is one "thing" that exists in one of two possible states, or something along those lines (obviously I don't know anything and neither does anybody else). And that there are an infinite amount of that one fundamental building block that, through emergence, create all the layers above.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:46:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Good one. It comes down to your opinion if :
consciousness is contained within/born of the brain, which is likely the more popular idea on reddit - or
consciousness precedes physical matter and actually created it.
In my opinion, everything is consciousness, and consciousness exists in every form, on every bandwidth... of which what humans perceive is a minute portion. Even inert matter has its own sentience, though it has nothing to do with human viewpoints. Likewise, consciousness created time and space (not to mention other times and other spaces, and everything else). Time, space, physical matter, etc. is only one mode of experience (although even within those confined parameters we experience an incredible diversity and multi-level of things). So, when you start grokking this, crap like the slavery of a 9-5 job make less and less sense, lol. The nature of "this reality" is not what it seems. Remember that old quote, 'if the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it really is, infinite' (something like that)
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:48:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
I find this really interesting. Early in the theory it was supposed that vibrations could not happen in the brain as it was to hot and moist. Then that got thrown out in 2013 by a group of Japanese researchers.
Barnowl79 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:56:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well you blew at least one person's mind today, congrats.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:34:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It can't be measured by any physical instrument. We are our own test subjects and scientists. Well. . We have the potential to be, I should say.
crazyredd88 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:56:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
THANK YOU FOR WRITING THIS! I have been trying to articulate this for so long!!! I get why my body WORKS, but why is the spirit that inhabits me only me? What creates this 'spirit'? Does a computer have this? A super complicated neural network? A toy?
AMA_About_Rampart ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:11:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What I want to know is where consciousness exists in time. The present is just a separation between the past and the future.. It doesn't really exist. Yet our consciousness exists in "the now." Now doesn't exist! Our awareness exists in something that does not exist! The fuck is that even? We can feel a sense of "now", but again.. When does now exist, in relation to the past and future? It's an infinitely small gap..
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 16:54:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We're just a really complex set of chemical reactions that lasts for varying amounts of time.
Bryaxis ยท 52 points ยท Posted at 17:33:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What advantage does a sentient set of chemical reactions have over a similar but non-sentient set of chemical reactions?
Little_Mouse ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:01:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The ability to think creatively and examine preconceptions critically are great advantages, and they are the primary reason humans have a noteworthy niche besides heat regulation and long distance jogging.
Toby_Forrester ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 20:12:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do we have to be conscious to have creative processes and examine preconceptions critically? Why wouldn't an unconscious computer be able to do these?
Raszhivyk ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:34:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's an interesting question l. While an actual answer is impossible now, I think conscious experience is the shortest path to that goal, which is why it seems the more adaptable/intelligent an animal it is the more it seems to display a mental interior. The fastest path to those abilities is that capacity for self awareness which is accompanied by individual experiences unavoidably. Emotions being something develiped for efficient decision making is another example of this. Making a choice without a gut preference just takes more time, and is usually a waste.
Little_Mouse ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:13:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The word "consciousness" is surprisingly hard to define at times depending on how close you look at it, so apologies if I am using it in a way that might not line up with your definition. We're both just lumps of meat trying to translate a series of neural pulses from one brain to another by using about five different adapters.
The ability to imagine the idea of an object as separate from the object itself (object permanence) is vital to the ability to plan ahead and imagine future outcomes. The ability to plan and 'simulate' a strategy is obviously able to provide a survival benefit over those who are unable to do so.
The ability to think abstractly about objects and concepts leads naturally to the ability to think of "me" as an abstract concept. I would argue that the processes are interconnected in a fundamental way. Especially if you want to plan ahead in any sense.
You might have an instinctual response that simulates the ability to plan ahead, such as the instinct to store food in specific places, and the instinct to check those types of places for food once you are hungry. Though these sorts of instinctual actions are very specific, and solve only one problem at a time.
The ability to imagine and plan as a general function, to store food in a specific spot and remember where it is later, or to imagine how a fight might go with a predator, can use the same mechanism to solve general problems over and over again using the same brain architecture.
Kanbaru-Fan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:43:20 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you approach it from the opposite direction, wouldn't the ability to have creative processes and examine preconceptions critically generally manifest in specific ways that we then define as consciousness? I mean that consciousness might be the inevitable outcome of the required complexity.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:34:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
None. It doesn't matter when we're just matter.
If anything we're just helping the probable eventual heat death of the Universe to happen a tiny amount quicker.
Bryaxis ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 17:38:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So there's no reason for a species to evolve sentience? Then why do we have it?
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 17:41:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well it's entirely possible "sentience" as we understand it is just the culmination of refinement of these complex chemical reactions we call "life" over millions of years. It's entirely possible sentience is just a hard-baked outcome of matter interacting over vast amounts of time and it's nothing special at all really.
It also means that us being sentient holds no real novelty of importance at all either.
Bryaxis ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 17:43:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So we're sentient just 'cuz?
That's not a very satisfying answer.That's not an answer. You're basically saying "it happens by some unknown mechanism".SaturdayforaSunday ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 17:58:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you want real answers you must be open to the possibility that they may be something you don't want to hear.
Toby_Forrester ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:09:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The answer doesn't really address the issue. That where does consciousness come from specifically. It's entirely possible sentience is just a hard-baked outcome of matter interacting over vast amounts of time and it's nothing special at all really, that still does not answer at all that what in that interacting matter exactly causes consciousness? What makes it possible for matter to feel things? Is feeling a property of matter?
sweetmoses ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:58:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consciousness is essentially the story we tell ourselves based on external and internal inputs. It's the sum that's greater than the sum of its parts. I've heard of it compared to a colony of ants, wherein each individual ant has a predetermined simple task and all combined the colony can perform tasks well beyond any of its individuals' capabilities. Similarly, your ears take in some information, your eyes take in some, your nose, hands, etc., and then your consciousness is the part that makes sense of it.
Or more simply, consciousness may be an emergent property of a certain chemical material combination. So it's like asking what makes it possible for gravity to make things attract it. That's just how it works.
spencer102 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 07:41:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Except scientists are actually very interested in how and why gravity works. If you're content to not know, that's fine, but it doesn't mean you've figured anything out.
sweetmoses ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:58:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I didn't say I didn't want to know, nor that I figured anything out. I said that consciousness is likely an emergent property of self replication, like gravity is an emergent property of mass. Why properties emerge is a question that we're still in search of.
spencer102 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:47:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then I'm struggling to understand the intention of your comment, because the person you were responding to said the same thing?
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:14:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your brain.
You are your brain, and it has tons of tools to sense and be aware of it's surroundings using stimuli around us. Your nerves in your hands touch and feel and send electrical impulses to your brain. Your taste buds taste by feeling the food itself and sending electrical impulses to your brain. Your eyes see around in the visible wavelength spectrum and send those impulses to your brain.
The idea is that we're basically just a very advanced organic computer, but the idea is the same. We use sensors to interact with our surroundings.
Sentience though, simply comes down to how advanced our brain is.
Or you can choose to think you have a soul or something; it really doesn't matter either way, because what is, will be regardless of how you feel about it..
Toby_Forrester ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:03:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That still doesn't answer the question. What in our brains, what in electrical impulses causes consciousness?
The hard question of consciousness does not claim we are not our brains. It deals with the question how do our brains generate consciousness and what is consciousness.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:11:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And my point is that conciousness, sentience, may very well just be the culmination of all the processes going on in our brains. The complex system of electrical impulses and physical matter that is our brain may be all there is. We have no idea still.
Toby_Forrester ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:46:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My point being that consciousness being a culmination of all the processes in our brains, the complex system of electrical impulses and physical matter still does not explain what in said phenomena causes consciousness and how. How does a collection of electrical impulses and physical matter generate subjective experiences.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:29:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But it's entirely possible that's all conciousness is. A really complex "computer". It's entirely possible that that is all sentience is.
You can't prove a negative.
That's the thing, no one knows where that barrier lies.
Go watch this video, it's a good intro into the science of consciousness, and kind of outlines where scientists are at with it. Essentially? We're still babies learning to crawl when it comes to this subject.
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you_explain_consciousness
Toby_Forrester ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:57:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And that's what I'm trying to point out. No one knows where the barrier is and how it works. Saying "our consciousness is our brains and complex chemicals and electricity and it's like a complex computer" does not answer the question where the barrier is and how it works. The hard question of consciousness is not is our consciousness the product of our brains or not. The hard question as paraprhased in this thread is "If you are just a highly complex collection of physical matter, how does a first person point of awareness come into being? Why do we experience things from such a non tangible way while being made of tangible stuff?"
That question already has the premise that we are just a highly complex collection of physical matter, a complex system of electrical impulses, a really complex natural computer. That is not the question. The question is how this system produces consciousness.
"We're just a really complex set of chemical reactions that lasts for varying amounts of time" does not answer the question, because it does not explain how said phenomena create consciounsess.
I was trying to point out that we're still babies learning to crawl when it comes to this subject.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:11:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Uh, yeah, it kind of is. We ARE our brains, so if we're sentient the answer to why that is lies in our brains, in it's structure and functions.
I said that because that's all we currently know in regards to sentience and consciousness. That is the only hard observations we have in the phenomena. I never said that was the answer for WHY or HOW it occurs, simply that that is what's actually occurring.
What about this is confusing you?
Toby_Forrester ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:17:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because that was not the question asked, it seemed that you tried to answer this question with (paraphrasing) "it's not a hard question, we are our brains and the complex material reactions they have".
No one questioned do the things you said happen. That was already the premise of the original question: "If you are just a highly complex collection of physical matter, how does a first person point of awareness come into being?"
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:18:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then by that logic literally NO ONE should have answered since the question has no answer.
Will you stop being overly pedantic for no reason?
Toby_Forrester ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:26:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You asked what was confusing to me. I answered.
My logic was not that "someone replied, so therefore they tried to present an answer to the question".
My logic was "as this reply only contained an explanation which was already included in the premise of the question presented, this person seemed to misunderstand the hard question of consciousness".
I'm not the only one who seemed to understand your reply like that, as this and this comment too show. They too understood that you tried to present an answer to the hard question of consciousness.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:29:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Okay, now go annoy every other single person that responded to that same comment. Seems only logical, right?
No, the only logical reasoning you had to respond to me was that you were perplexed by the fact I didn't answer their question with an actual answer. But considering there ARE NO answers, that means I shouldn't have responded. Which means no one should have responded to them at all.
You're being pretty irrational right now, buddy.
Except, I wasn't... Can you really not understand that? I wasn't trying to declare the answer to why consciousness exists.
I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp, truly...
Toby_Forrester ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:39:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, because
1) I did not interpret that every reply was trying to answer the hard question of consciousness, because many replies clearly acknowledged that it is a hard question without an answer.
2) I did not read every reply, and I am under no obligation to read and reply to every comment which has the same content yours.
So, you are saying I'm a liar when I explained my reason for answering? That the reasoning I gave is a lie, that you know the true reasoning?
No. People can answer with wrong answers they believe to be true. Just because people don't know the right answer does not mean they are unable to give wrong answers. So, even though we actually do not know the answer to hard problem of consciousness, it does not prevent people from believing we do and giving wrong answers based on this belief.
Also, as I said, others commented in a way which made it clear they did not try to present an answer.
I know that now. I was only explaining why I was confused: because you wrote your message in such an unclear way that me and other people misunderstood what you were trying to say.
I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp, truly.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:44:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look pal, I'm not wasting anymore time on this.
You misinterpreted my intent, end of story.
I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp, truly.
Goodbye.
Toby_Forrester ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:02:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. I said that already, when you asked me to explain.
I have said several times that I misunderstood what you said. I also pointed out that others misunderstood you, highlighting that it's not something unreasonable.
But you failed to grasp this, and keep announcing that I misunderstood you, as if I didn't say that already.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:02:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp, truly.
Goodbye.
Toby_Forrester ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:18:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You said goodbye but still replied, so it seems you didn't grasp it either.
And I knew you're going to read my reply anyway, which you obviously did, as you responded. So that's why I replied.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:33:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp, truly.
Goodbye.
aleafytree ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:04:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe conciousness is the natural result of a physical universe itself. A sort of inverse perspective to 'I think, therefor I am'.
triavatar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:09:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like to think of it in a few steps:
1) Imagine the brain only exists to perceive: This will explain the parts of the brain that are responsible for the senses
2) Imagine the brain only exists to preserve genetic code: This will explain the parts of the brain that are responsible for the autonomous life functions (breathing, heartbeat, getting hungry, thirsty etc.) as well as the drive to procreate. (woohoo)
3) Combine those two and include the fact that we retain memories: Explanation of consciousness and emotions?
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 17:46:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's one of the possible answers, there's just no way for us to know for sure.
People often choose to believe in a higher power because they don't want their entire existence to be pointless, plus they don't want their death to be the end of their existence. But at the end of the day, there's nothing they can do about that either way anyway.
sweetmoses ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:41:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I never understood people looking for some grand reason to exist. It's like, doesn't your existence mean something to YOU at least? And it probably means something to your family and friends and peers if you're lucky. Isn't all that stuff reason enough to enjoy life?
I also never understood people's discomfort with being dead. I understand not looking forward to the process of dying, it could be scary or painful or you might get decapitated or some crazy shit. But once you're dead, I'm thinking it's gonna be a lot like how I felt in 1750, which is to say not at all. But I think that's something young people say. Old people are usually tired and ready to stop existing.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:37:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's funny. No one ever worries about the fact that they didn't exist before they were born..
AllDirectionBlind ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here's a great Ted Talk on this idea (Dual Aspect Monism).
usernamesarehard9099 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:08:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just because you don't like an answer it doesn't mean it's wrong
sweetmoses ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:34:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Truth doesn't depend on your individual satisfaction.
And it's not really just 'cuz. It's possible that the reason we are aware is precisely because of the chemical reactions and the state of the universe in this place that allowed for consciousness to develop at this time.
Beyond that, we all assign our own reasons to our own lives. None of us have to be here. We all won't be here one day, and relatively soon.
I agree that sentience is most likely an inevitable result of self replication. We can agree that at least some other animals are conscious, right? One could argue that every living thing, including plants, has some level of consciousness or awareness of itself.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:57:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You edited your answer. You should just PM or leave another comment if you expect someone to actually see your changes.
To your comment though, it actually IS an answer.
I'm not saying it happens by some unknown mechanism, I'm saying sentience is as simple as the right atoms/molecules being arranged in the correct order and space.
If you had the time and ability, you could map the entire framework of your body, where exactly every atom/molecule is positioned. And if you had the technological capability, you could arrange matter into the exact framework that makes YOU, you...
In that regard you would be creating an exact copy of you. So if this "clone" would be sentient as well, then that's just showing that sentience is simply a specific framework of atoms/molecules bundled together and interacting with each other. Just think of it as you as a giant Lego structure, but made up of trillions of atoms.
Make more sense now?
Bryaxis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:42:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a woefully incomplete answer.
Take, for instance, a burning candle. If I were to ask, "How is that candle burning?", answering that it's as simple as the atoms/molecules arranged in the correct order and space isn't very helpful. It's not incorrect, but it's not helpful. It would be much better to go into detail about about covalent bonds and combustion reactions and activation energies and whatnot.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:02:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sorry to say, but that's the reality of it. There ARE NO complete answers. Our existence, our reality, are all completely perplexing and we are nowhere close to understanding it, or even know if it's actually possible to really understand it.
Well:
Candles work by a chemical reaction, combustion in this case. The wax (which is absorbed and pulled upward inside the wick as it turns into a liquid) then reacts with oxygen in the air, and the result is carbon dioxide, along with a bit of water as steam. The wax never really burns perfectly which is why there's usually visible smoke mainly made up of unburned carbon and which is why there's left over black stuff, that's the carbon.
So you see, there are many processes in the world that we can explain, through science, through observation, through study. Sentience and what is being "sentient" is a young field, and not well understood at all, with multiple currently competing theories. Sorry, there's no definitive answers out there for you, but that's just how it is.
That's life.
Does going into the quantum interactions and mechanics of what's going on actually get you closer to answering what sentience/consciousness is?
No.
Bryaxis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:06:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree; the top post in this thread is very appropriate.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:17:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This one?
Yeah, that's basically the point I was trying to make. But also the fact that regardless of the fact that this appears to be true, doesn't mean there's a purpose for it either.
dragonwithagirltatoo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:15:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The problem is that you can keep asking why over and over. "Why does A happen? Because B. Why does B happen?" The truth is that we can't explain why anything happens, the laws of physics are just how reality goes, there's no reason or cause for it, it just is. This applies to everything. We dont know why particles interact the way they do, we don't know why there's anything at all. Sure, the math points to it working a certain way, but that's based on premises that we have to accept because "That's just the way it is". What he's saying is that it may turn out that conscioussness is something fundamental like conservation of momentum, which is something we take for granted but can't truly give a reason for. There are lots of things like this that seem intuitive to us so we don't even ask why. If we applied the same level of scrutiny to every day events that we apply to conscioussness we would find we don't have a good reason for anything.
triavatar ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:39:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Plenty of things in physics are answered by "Just cuz" when you ask why for long enough. Here's one to perplex you: Why do paradoxes exist?? Is it something wrong with our brains? or with reality?
the_potato_hunter ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:46:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sentience just happened by chance in something and that something happened to be capable of creating more sentience. There is no meaningful reason why, it just happened.
Toby_Forrester ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But what is it? That's the hard question. If we have it just by chance, that still does not explain the mechanism what causes consciousness. What makes matter able to feel things?
_TheBro_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:28:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is the high chance that consciousness is just an illusion/byproduct of an brain making complex decisions fully based on outer impressions.
crazyredd88 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:59:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So a computer, with similar complexity, shares consciousness in it's own way?
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:28:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What? Rephrase that.
gzunk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:37:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe.
But since the brain has 100 billion neurons, significantly more glial cells and an estimated 1 quadrillion (1015) synapses (links between neurons) we're a long way off getting a computer to equal it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:21:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
gzunk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:49:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just a lowly psychology degree, and it's very difficult to make comparisons between traditional computers and brains because their architecture is so different and we don't have a full understanding on how brains actually work.
A brain is extremely parallel and the best way to think about it is likely as a learning pattern matching machine, so a given set of inputs triggers a specific response. But the set of these inputs is massive (figuratively speaking) and everybody is different (due to experience/genetics).
But even then, the brain when it's freshly formed isn't without structure, some of that is baked in by genetics. We can emulate parts of the brain now, but only small well understood parts. As for how long it would take to emulate a complete human brain? I suspect we're talking decades at least of computer development.
I think it's far more likely that we'll start growing brain tissue in the lab and link that up to existing computers. Use the flesh for what it's good at - extreme pattern matching - and use the silicon for what it's good at. This likely will also take decades, but is likely cheaper and more achievable (morality aside).
triavatar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:36:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wouldn't that go against conservation of energy?
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:53:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Which part? The heat death?
triavatar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:14:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Us accelerating the universe's eventual demise.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:25:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well technically we are, in terms of Entropy, but it's just an unimaginably small amount it's basically negligible.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:45:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This sounds like the kind of pithy non-answer you'd expect to hear from someone defending theism or spirituality.
He's not asking about the purpose of life. He's asking about natural selection.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:52:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What lol? It's literally an argument for the EXACT opposite of theism or spirituality. Nihilism is pretty much as far opposite as you can get buddy...
No, they weren't...
They were saying if there's no point for life to gain sentience, then why do we have it?
Then I made the point that there until might be literally no reason for us to have it.
Are these concepts really that hard for you to grasp buddy?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:11:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not your buddy, guy.
Yeah, that's the point. Many theists will argue that atheism necessarily leads to nihilism. Most atheists would not agree.
At no time did he ever use the word point. He used the word advantage. He asked what advantage sentience has over non-sentience. How do you get "What is the point of life?" out of that question?
Natural selection works by random mutations which give individuals an advantage over other individuals.
His question seems to be asking:
"How does consciousness arise naturally if we're all just a bunch of matter? What advantage would sentience have over non-sentience, that would allow us to evolve that trait via natural selection?"
At any rate, we can just ask him.
Hey, /u/Bryaxis, could you clarify the intent behind your comment?
Bryaxis ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:31:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are correct, /u/fairly_bookish.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:51:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/u/fairly_bookish, /u/Bryaxis
Let me clarify. The point I was trying to make is that it is possible sentience is just a fundamental nature of our Universe and our reality.
So it that regard, talking about the advantages of sentience in evolution and natural selection is kind of a redundant subject, and at the least kind of pointless when we don't even understand the mechanics of sentience itself.
This video someone above linked is a good video getting into the basics of the Science of Conciousness. It's a subject that is still barren, new and up for conversation. This isn't a clear-cut subject...
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you_explain_consciousness
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:16:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then you did a poor job of making that point.
Sentience is a trait of life. All traits of life arose from evolution by natural selection, as far as we know. With that in mind, I don't see how it could possibly be a redundant subject. And at any rate, your original comment did not allude to any of this.
Until we find evidence to the contrary, the reasonable hypothesis seems to be that it arose from natural selection.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:23:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sorry you don't, understand, words?
You would agree a rock doesn't appear to be sentient, right?
So trying to say a human has an advantage over a rock, where a human is sentient and a rock is not, makes ZERO sense. Obviously the rock doesn't care what happens to it, because it's just a jumble of matter.
But we humans are just jumbles of matter as well, yes? We are just a more complex system of matter and go through uncountable sets of chemical reactions and electrical impulses. So then, is life itself mutually inclusive with sentience to some degree?
That's the entire point. To talk about advantages of sentience in life, evolution and natural selection is essentially pointless. Especially when we don't even understand the very nature of sentience itself...
Pickin' up what I'm puttin' down yet, friend?
No one is debating the idea that sentience occur from the evolution of life...
I'm talking about the reasons why sentience itself exists, and our complete misunderstanding of that.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:30:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It makes perfect sense when you realize he was talking about natural selection, and his question was what advantage does sentience offer over non-sentience, that would allow that trait to arise by evolution.
Sure.
No. Not even a little bit. Where are you even getting that idea?
You keep saying that, but I'm not sure that you even know what you mean by it. I certainly don't.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:36:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
AGAIN. Trying to debate the advantages/disadvantages between being sentient and NOT being sentient is POINTLESS.
Does it make sense to you to debate the advantages a human has over a rock (something that is not sentient)?
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU?...
Glad we can agree on something.
How do you know? Please, link your research that shows that to be FACT? Please, tell me how you know the answers where countless numbers of scientists do NOT have the answers, but YOU DO?
You're acting ridiculous.
I keep saying it, and you keep misunderstanding...
I know what I'm saying, you just don't seem able to interpret it correctly, so this entire conversation is pointless.
You wouldn't argue with a non-sentient rock, would you?...
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:46:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He wasn't talking about a rock. He was asking what advantages a sentient life would have over non-sentient life.
At some point in our species' ancestral history, we were apes who had not yet developed sentience. In order for sentience to arise by natural selection, it would have had to offer those apes some kind of survival advantage, otherwise it wouldn't have happened. He was asking what advantage sentient apes would have over non-sentient apes.
But I think I finally understand where you're getting confused. You seem to have the bizarre idea that all life has sentience, so when you heard him ask what advantage sentient chemistry has over non-sentient chemistry, you assumed he was talking about a rock. But he wasn't.
I know because I know what the definition of sentience is. There are a lot of things we don't know about sentience, but we at least have a definition of what it is.
The Google definition: "Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively."
So how do we know that life itself is not synonymous with sentience? Because trees are alive. Bacteria are alive. But neither of them are sentient. A tree cannot feel. A bacteria cannot perceive its own existence. A virus cannot think.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:48:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe you should go read even more books, because you're completely helpless...
You continue to misinterpret everything I say, so conversing with you is literally pointless. Good day.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:50:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You really should take the time to read my last comment, because I finally was able to identify the source of our disagreement.
You thought he was talking about a fucking rock, when he was not.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:05:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can you just leave me alone. I've already told you I'm done talking to you if you want to keep misinterpreting.
Peace!
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:15:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're a liar and an intellectually dishonest coward.
Have a nice day.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:17:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And you resort to ad hominem attacks when you get frustrated, by your own doing, rather than choose to interpret others correctly.
Have a day, doesn't matter if it's good or not.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:38:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not an ad hominem attack if it's true. I've directly quoted your words, and you still accuse me of putting words in your mouth.
That makes you a liar, sir.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:42:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reported. I keep telling you to stop harassing me, and you won't listen.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:20:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why did you delete your comment?
The fact that I clearly don't care to keep trying to explain myself to you over and over and over considering you obviously can not.
I'm going to consider any further comments to be harassment after I've made my stance painfully clear, so I'm going to start reporting you otherwise.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:38:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I deleted it because I chose to call you out on your dishonesty instead.
All I've done is reply to your replies to me. You're the one who chooses to keep responding. If you never want to hear from me again, you only have to stop responding.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:42:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That makes no sense. You said, "What have I misinterpreted this time?" This shows you were trying to continue to harass me, that was all.
All you've done is constantly misinterpret me, either willfully or perhaps due to your failings. Regardless, you can't even interpret the words when I ask you to stop talking to me as it's literally pointless, because you don't care to understand what I'm even saying.
The classic Troll argument. "You're the one who keeps responding trollololool".
I'll say it one more time. Stop commenting to me, or I'll consider it harassment and report you, as it is.
Either stop, or I'll start reporting you. Your choice.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:48:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not your guy, friend.
So you're saying people who say there is DEFINITELY no greater power that created us, would never ponder if our existence is meaningless or not?
I think you're deluding yourself, friend.
When I said "point", I was talking about what they were positing. Are you really going to be that pedantic?...
You assumed my answer was trying to answer "What is the point of life?" and you are mistaken. I was talking about one of the possible fundamental aspects of our reality, that sentience is simply a natural part of the nature of the Universe and an unavoidable outcome of the interactions within it. It's a possibility. Where did ever I say that was THE answer? You're misinterpreting things here, friend.
Yeah, I know what natural selection is.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:03:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Of course they might ponder it. But that doesn't mean they will reach the same conclusion.
How was I possibly supposed to get all that from "None. It doesn't matter if we're just matter"?
If I misunderstood your statement, it's because you misunderstood the question he was asking, and gave an answer that was not relevant to the question.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:11:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well no duh. Where did I ever say all Atheists are Nihilists?... You were obviously putting words in my mouth and assuming things...
I guess I thought it was pretty obvious, but I've been proven wrong.
When they say, "What's the advantage" from a survival standpoint?
I then said, "None. It doesn't matter if we're just matter."
That's obviously me saying it's possible sentience has no purpose or advantage. And saying it doesn't matter if we're just matter means that perhaps the mere fact we exist does not necessarily mean there is automatically purpose to our existence.
Put two and two together, and obviously I'm referring to nihilism, regardless of the fact that obviously we are sentient.
Are you still confused?
It was relevant; I'm sorry you can't realize that...
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:24:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Says the person who just claimed I said that atheists never ponder the meaning of life.
Yes, that much is obvious. But as we've established, he was asking that within the context of natural selection.
Are you a troll or do you not realize that you're contradicting yourself?
Because when I pointed out to you that /u/Bryaxis was talking about natural selection, and that he never brought up the purpose of life, you told me that you had never brought up the purpose of life either, and that I had misinterpreted your comment.
And I was willing to accept that as true, but now you're telling me that you were talking about the purpose of life.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:29:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What?? You made it seem like I was saying all Atheists are Nihilists and think life is pointless. Then I clarified I NEVER said that. And now you think I was saying you think Atheists never ponder the meaning of life?
Can you seriously stop putting words in my mouth? It just makes you seem stupid...
Our conversation evolved as we kept talking, before and after you butted in. We concluded our conversation, so maybe we should to?
Look, me turning the conversation into a different aspect doesn't matter. Me explaining how talking about the advantage of sentience in evolution is pointless, really is not a problem. You just seem like you want to argue with me about this? What's the point dude, let it go.
Are you? Honestly. You keep misinterpreting what I'm saying and getting hung up on stupid shit. You're being pretty irrational right now...
I'm sorry, I'm not going to sit here all night trying to explain this to you, over and over and over.
Goodbye.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:34:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a direct quote from you:
"So you're saying people who say there is DEFINITELY no greater power that created us, would never ponder if our existence is meaningless or not?"
Here's a link to the comment where you said it.
You, sir, are a liar and a fraud.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:42:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ME: None. It doesn't matter when we're just matter.
ME: "What lol? It's literally an argument for the EXACT opposite of theism or spirituality. Nihilism is pretty much as far opposite as you can get buddy..."
See? You thought I was somehow referring to Atheism? Where the FUCK did you come up with thinking I was ever talking about Atheism.
This entire conversation devolved because you didn't even interpret my original comment correctly. And now you're grasping at straws struggling to "come ahead" or something.
You're acting like a child who just wants to kick and scream and win an argument, rather than have a conversation.
I'm done with you. So sad.....
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:52:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your quote: "So you're saying people who say there is DEFINITELY no greater power that created us, would never ponder if our existence is meaningless or not?"
People who say there is definitely no greater power that created us. Your words.
There is a word for people who believe there is no greater power that created us.
Atheists.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:06:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You keep putting words in my mouth. I already told you, I'm done with you.
Goo'bye!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:10:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They're your own words. It's a direct fucking quote.
xXUnidanXx ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 21:43:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What a stupidly naive response.
What's the capital of Louisiana?
You: it doesn't matter, nothing matters, God is dead, Dawkins Dawkins Dawkins
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:36:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol, you have some hang up with Nihilism and the utter pointlessness of our existence? You seem to be having an existential crisis and just want to run from your fears.
So sad...
It's Baton Rouge by the way.
Patar13 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:47:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the sentient one gets to decide whether it is better or not.
SammyD1st ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:36:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pattern recreation.
There's no "advantage" per se, there's just more of it... (n = 1 of earth, so far)... because by its nature it makes more of itself.
1369ic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:42:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It aids reason. It helps us think our way out of problems and defeat rival organisms that have superior physical attributes. That gives us an evolutionary advantage and nature keeps selecting for it because it improves our survival rates and those of our offspring.
Mindfullmatter ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:11:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No advantage, just an apparent volition. Which is nice.
Prosthemadera ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:47:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The fact you can even ask that question, in a virtual space in a victual forum that no other species has created, should help you find an answer.
Ewindal ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:39:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
All matter seeks a state of increased entropy. Conscious matter goes towards entropy faster than matter that just lies around on a dead rock orbiting a star.
PointyOintment ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:40:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's possible that it happened by accident
Prosthemadera ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:50:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's just an idea, a hypothesis. I wouldn't use the word "possible" because many things are possible but are they likely to be true?
Calithin ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:48:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
it holds certain disadvantages, honestly...
sweetmoses ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:18:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a good point. In terms of AI, I don't think we want machines to be conscious, we just want them to give us well thought out answers to complex problems. We want slaves, not overlords. And if we've learned anything from the dark parts of our own history, we know not to tell the slaves the whole story.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:45:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I should think the answer to that is pretty obvious, is it not?
Sentience, consciousness, whatever you want to call it -- our ability to think and plan has elevated us to the highest point on the food chain, even above the apex predators of the world.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:44:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thing is chemicals don't have subjective experience. That's the issue, and why this is such a difficult philosophical problem that people far smarter than both of us have been beating their heads against the wall for thousands of years trying to figure it out.
In physical terms the human body is just dead matter. Matter that has somehow, through some strange process, managed to accumulate in such a way to make it twitch in just the right way and stop itself from rotting, but dead matter all the same.
So how did it develop a notiion of "I"? What, in those chemical reactions and little electrical pulses in our brains, conspires to produce something as flat out strange, complex, and ephemeral as a coherent thought? How can the physical give birth to the non-physical?
Kanbaru-Fan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:51:00 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And a simple logic gate can't simulate a spinning cube yet a large number of them can do that just fine in a computer. Our self isn't the physical components, it's the way they are structured, their complexity. While you can depict and describe it on paper can't really grasp complexity in the natural world, it's a concept that you can describe as non-physical.
Our confusion about this this partly arises from the inability to imagine a gradual transition from not-conscious to human-conscious but this is a naturally (and inevitably) biased prejudice. The same goes for other concepts like 'being alive'.
Lightwithoutlimit ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:07:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are what you think.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:18:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not true, at all.
I can think I'm a cat-bug, but it doesn't make it so.
ChevyChaseIsNice ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:47:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think you guys are using 2 different definitions of think. Lightwithoutlimit means to say you are what you "Think ABOUT", think life is meaningless and you prove it to yourself.
You think he meant I Think "YOU ARE/I AM"
I agree with both of you in this case
Lightwithoutlimit ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:44:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're just not thinking hard enough about it then!
MTAApple ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:56:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
but what chooses what consciousness is placed into what body? is there something behind the scenes not yet discovered about this fate-driven system?
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:58:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're assuming conciousness isn't just the result of this complex system of chemical reactions we call life. You're assuming there's another level to reality, when there is no evidence of such a thing.
If there is, there's zero evidence for it yet.
ChevyChaseIsNice ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:44:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Could we also say... You're assuming consciousness IS just the result of this complex system of chemical reactions we call life. You're assuming there's only one level to reality, when there is no evidence of such a thing.
Has anyone discovered THE set of chemicals that produces consciousness? Seems like a 50/50 shot at the moment.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:33:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not really. I'm looking at what we can record, measure and sum up. We are made of matter. We have tons of chemical reactions, molecules, cells, etc. working in a very complex system. If conciousness is just a result of our particular arrangement of matter, that you end up with a sentient human, then if we had the technology to finely rearranged matter into specific spaces, we could in theory just replicate that human.
You're thinking there's a separate level of reality, souls if you will, when there's currently no evidence of that. So I would say then that I'm being more rational here than you are, from an objective standpoint.
We know what we're made of. We just don't have the technological capability to pinpoint every specific atom/molecule in our body and say where they are, or arrange them finely.
But no, if we could replicate a human this way, we would be making a sentient human being.
kaladyr ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:07:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:29:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Math doesn't require something to be physical to exist, No.
Would it matter if it existed if there was nothing to be conscious of it? No.
Sure, but what better method do you for trying interpret your reality?
I'll wait...
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:37:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:39:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I only delete when you irrationally downvote me. Don't act irrational, and I have no need to delete my comment.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:10:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:13:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You know that breaks the rules, because you're stalking and harassing me.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:15:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:58:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:05:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Moar copy and deletes!?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:29:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:39:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:43:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have eyes, and I'm reading your stupid comments.
Didn't think about that, huh?
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:47:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:47:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So you believe free-will exists, huh? Of course YOU would, lmao...
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:55:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:58:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So then you must believe time isn't linear, right?
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:04:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:07:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn. I've never met someone who relies on deflection quite as much as you do.
Lol, like I suspected, you'll avoid at all costs to ever make a point, because you can't defend any of the things you say.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:24:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:35:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh look, loads of more deflection. You're really good at that specifically, I'll admit.
And the fact that you feel superior to anyone makes me laugh. You have no objective answers, but you've read the works of others, so you feel confident, when in reality your existence is just as pointless as everyone else around you.
Lol, you make me smile.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:46:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:54:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And I personally think you're an incredibly pretentious individual who is so sad and depressed they feel the need to puff their chest on Reddit because that's the only place you can let your true doucheness shine.
I guess we all have our own personal hangups, huh?
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:03:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:08:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time out.
Please answer me seriously. Do you really enjoy acting this unlikable? I mean seriously, do you actually get off on being this utterly annoying? Do you have a significant other in your life? Family? Are you just depressed and use this as your coping method?
I'm genuinely curious how someone can act this way? Are you sociopathic maybe? Feel no emotions?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:13:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaladyr ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:28:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:31:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Still waiting...
All I'm reading in your comment is pretentious bullshit and redundancy.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:34:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:38:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You just spewed a bunch of pretentious rhetoric while literally making no point. You didn't put forth an argument or posit anything at all. You simply listed a bunch of subjects, that include the opinions of others.
You try to push your intelligence as if you actually have any objective answers, when in reality, you're just as ignorant as any other human who has ever existed.
You make me sad, because I see in you the naked little frail existence of sentient life that you are.
Lol, why lie? You're the only one down here in this buried thread. If you can't even be honest with yourself, why should I expect you to be honest with me?
kaladyr ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:49:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:58:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Read: "I won't try to defend my argument, because I can't."
Lol, you're a funny one.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:01:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:03:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ahh, a good Ad Hominem attack. The favorite weapon in the arsenal of a typical Reddit troll.
Thank you, this entertaining.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:06:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:10:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
LMAO
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:00:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
On an unrelated note, are you literally autistic? I'm not trolling, im legitimately curious man..
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:04:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:05:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:07:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:09:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
LOL
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:13:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Really dude? You're just going to keep downvoting everything I say?
You've shown you can't act rationally, so frankly good sir, happily fuck off please.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:38:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:43:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're the only one here downvoting, so stop trying to bullshit me. And in that regard, you're also being a hypocrite.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:50:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:56:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm clearly conversing with a mentally stable individual.
That was sarcasm by the way.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:00:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:04:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sarcasm or not, it proves to me what I expected of you, so thanks for that.
kaladyr ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:13:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:15:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Give me your name and credentials.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:18:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:27:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just as I thought, you don't have a tenure in shit. Most likely not even a professor either. So sad...
Also, you're a metal ring? Then how are you typing right now?
Considering Black Speech is an agglutinative language, there's no reason mixing it with Common is a problem?
The only problem here would be if you don't understand Black Speech, which I suppose you might?...
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:38:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:45:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You obviously don't understand what an agglutinative language is then, because if you did you would realize what you just said is superfluous.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:47:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Considering how pretentious and utterly unlikable you are, you must be lonely huh?
Look, if you're this starved for attention, just keep commenting to me if it'll make you feel better...
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:49:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Omg
Do I have to seriously explain to you that morphology != grammar in linguistics. Is this ANOTHER thing you suck at!?!?!?!??
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:52:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ash Nazg = One Ring, regardless of any words that surround it.
You're the ignorant fuckwit here, friend.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:12:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:25:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And like I already said, grammar doesn't matter in regards to this particular sentence itself, as the precedent was already confirmed by Tolkien to be grammatically correct when he wrote it.
Ash nazg durbatuluk = Ash nazg to rule them all.
They mean the exact same thing. I'm sorry this is so difficult for you to grasp... tsk tsk tsk...
Why? He's literally the one who wrote it... are you really that stupid?
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:29:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:56:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're trying to speak for Tolkien here. You're the fucking moron. You're so self-deluded you could convince yourself you're Abraham Lincoln, and then you would still argue with yourself that you're wrong.
Honestly, are you this insufferable in real life? In our brief exchange you've literally made me wish you did not exist, because you are that unbelievably repulsive.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:33:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:34:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:39:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeahhh... that's not how that works buddy.
So just because Einstein died that means you can just rewrite General/Special Relativity because you disagree?
You are objectively wrong, end of story.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:58:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:00:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time out.
Please answer me seriously. Do you really enjoy acting this unlikable? I mean seriously, do you actually get off on being this utterly annoying? Do you have a significant other in your life? Family? Are you just depressed and use this as your coping method?
I'm genuinely curious how someone can act this way? Are you sociopathic maybe? Feel no emotions?
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:06:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Aww, your karma.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:10:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So you ARE a theist?! HAH!!! I KNEW IT!!!!!!
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:10:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:12:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I legitimately believe you actually think that to be true.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:14:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:15:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:21:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How can she slap?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:21:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:22:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But, how can she slap?
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:53:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My friend has a message for you:
https://youtu.be/9Deg7VrpHbM
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:58:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:00:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol, you must be a shit teacher to spend so much time acting like an insane lunatic to a random stranger on Reddit. And constantly responding too. You're being irresponsible as fuck. Also, grading papers while getting drunk off box wine?
Fucking pathetic.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:05:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:08:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You've been "drinking" wine for hours at this point. You're either drunk, or lying for the sake of being pretentious.
Shit, now that I think of it, it's probably the latter..
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:14:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:20:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:25:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:56:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're a fucking Keebler elf.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:30:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:31:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do I get free cookies?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:39:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:58:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I tried but the gun jammed. What do I do now?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:59:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:05:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's violent.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:06:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then buy another gun.
kaladyr ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:09:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I did, it jammed too. Maybe I do live in a simulation and am immortal.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:11:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:13:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:25:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol, said like a true edgelord.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:25:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
..
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:08:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time out.
Please answer me seriously. Do you really enjoy acting this unlikable? I mean seriously, do you actually get off on being this utterly annoying? Do you have a significant other in your life? Family? Are you just depressed and use this as your coping method?
I'm genuinely curious how someone can act this way? Are you sociopathic maybe? Feel no emotions?
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:45:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time out.
Please answer me seriously. Do you really enjoy acting this unlikable? I mean seriously, do you actually get off on being this utterly annoying? Do you have a significant other in your life? Family? Are you just depressed and use this as your coping method?
I'm genuinely curious how someone can act this way? Are you sociopathic maybe? Feel no emotions?
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:01:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:02:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Imaginary friends don't count, sorry.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:07:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:09:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:11:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:31:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:32:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've replied to this.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:15:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:20:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:02:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time out.
Please answer me seriously. Do you really enjoy acting this unlikable? I mean seriously, do you actually get off on being this utterly annoying? Do you have a significant other in your life? Family? Are you just depressed and use this as your coping method?
I'm genuinely curious how someone can act this way? Are you sociopathic maybe? Feel no emotions?
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:05:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And I find it funny how you basically called yourself a cuck, since your SO is coming over to my place.
Lol, you DO seem like the kind of masochistic fuck that would enjoy getting cucked.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:08:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:09:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's objectively impossible as she is dead.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:12:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:17:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yep, sociopath. Knew it.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:21:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:57:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can assume it does considering how belligerent you're acting, but you're the only one who can say if it does or not. But considering how irrational you choose to act, there's no way I could ever trust you.
But frankly, I couldn't give a shit less either way. You don't need alcohol to act like an imbecile.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 04:14:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought you were busy drinking a box of wine or something?
You're clearly an intellectual, considering you have the will and time to harass people on Reddit.
LMFAO.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:21:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:30:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:45:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:26:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because rather than have an actual conversation you instantly downvoted me. You proved to me right then and there you wouldn't act rational, so trying to have a conversation with you would be pointless.
And all of your subsequent comments have only reinforced my original assumptions, so thanks for that buddy.
kaladyr ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:33:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:34:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But how can you prove your mothers mother exists?
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:36:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:37:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can't prove anyone or anything exists. And do you mean literally exist, or just theoretically exist. Do you mean exist in the sentient sense, or an objective manner. How does anyone's mom exist if we can't prove their mothers existed? How can you prove you exist, when you can't prove your mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed? How can you prove her mother existed when you can't prove her mother existed?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:46:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've come across a lot of stupid people in my time on reddit, but after debating with him for the last few hours, I can say I've never come across anyone who is both as stupid and as intellectually dishonest as the guy you're arguing with.
Don't waste your time on him.
lookit49 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:55 on April 23, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol, I read through everything and you pretty clearly kept twisting everything the dude was telling you. You kept getting into nonsense tangential bullshit arguments.
Lol, bigga you thirsty as fuck.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:49:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But wine drunk!!! Red panda wine.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:29:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:33:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, I'm your new best friend buddy. This is the beginning of a long beautiful friendship between you and I.
XOXO, night night.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:34:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
AshNazgToRuleThemAll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:36:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well considering the fervor in which you were responding to me, the sheer tenacity of your efforts, it's pretty obvious you love me.
Do you drink Bailey's from a shoe? Come on, stop playing then love games with meh.
kaladyr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:37:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:17:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:21:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What did I say that was tangential or twisting his words? Just one example.
Because reading over it all again, I don't see anywhere where I did that.
But then, the guy's comments to other people from earlier in the day don't seem nearly as irrational as his comments to me.
Maybe he's drunk.
lookit49 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:04:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You misinterpreted his original comment and then even after they clarified their point you kept pushing the fact that you simply misunderstood their original comment repeatedly to them.
Just seemed like you were worried about winning an argument he wasn't having with you?
Yeah I see those. Seems like they were just matching the level of crazy that other dude was bringing to the table. Hard to fight with someone acting as belligerently as that lol.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:05:21 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think you may not have read over the entire thing, actually.
My first comment to him was that he had misinterpreted the statement of the guy he was talking to. He seemed to be saying the guy was talking about the purpose of life, and I said the guy was talking about natural selection.
His first reply to me did not mention anything about me taking his statement out of context. All he said was that I was wrong, that natural selection had nothing to do with what that guy was talking about.
So I then asked that guy to chime in and tell us who was correct, and he confirmed that I was correct, that he had been talking about natural selection.
It was then that he changed gears, and accused me for the first time of misinterpreting his comment. Here, he denies that he was ever talking about the purpose of life.
Yet here, one comment later, he admits that he was talking about nihilism, and whether or not life has a purpose. This was my original point, exactly, which he said I had misinterpreted. Yet here he is agreeing with it.
Here is another example of him accusing me of putting words in his mouth, when all I was doing was quoting him directly.
This is where I realize I'm not just dealing with someone who is having trouble following my line of reasoning, I'm actually dealing with an intellectually dishonest liar.
The length that he argued with the other guy, and never accused that guy of harassment, is my biggest clue that he only stopped interacting with me because he knew he was wrong. He never stopped replying to that guy.
lookit49 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:05 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dude you're fucking retarded lol.
Nothing of what you just said makes sense. You were being an annoying douchebag, and you expected them to act rationally towards you? You can't reason with stupid.
Take your ADHD medicine spazzoid.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:29:04 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The fact that I've said nothing to warrant this kind of provocation from you leads me to believe you're actually the same guy I was arguing with, on an alternate account.
In which case, who is harassing who?
lookit49 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:24 on April 23, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No I just think you're acting like a douchebag lol.
Stop getting pissy and paranoid just because people are calling you out on your bullshit.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:54:21 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And, oh look, both of your reddit accounts were created on the same day. I'm sure that's a complete coincidence.
lookit49 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:52:38 on April 23, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What the hell are you talking about? I randomly came upon your conversation with this dude and think you were both acting stupid. My point was that why would you expect the other person to act rational when you weren't even doing that yourself?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:02:15 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:08:57 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure you did, buddy. Sure you did.
TheBossMan5000 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:04:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like you need a little bit of Bashar in your life
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:20:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bashar al-Assad? no thanks :/
TheBossMan5000 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:52:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol, no. Bashar, a.k.a Darryl Anka, the spritiual channel. He goes into that type of consciousness stuff a lot
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:07:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ik i was kidding :P
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:37:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look up pansychism. It is, far as I can tell, the only "solution" to that problem I've come across that comes anywhere close to being satisfactory, though even then it is all speculation.
I will admit to being a strange person, of fairly esoteric beliefs. I do not claim to have any sort of special insight into the workings of the universe nor am I so far down the rabbit hole I've ditched all skepticism. The way I see it, however, either consciousness is some sort of freak effect of nature, or the actual essense of it is something that we are currently not equipped to understand, and that arguably pervades nature on a metaphysical level.
Either way, I believe human beings put a little too much faith in their own perceptions. It is easy to come to the conclusion that the former possibility (freak accident) is true if you assume everything in the universe must naturally conform to our understanding of physical laws, and must present itself in a way that is comprehensible to our physical sense (sight, touch, smell, etc). In other words, since we can't put that "essense" of consciousness in a bottle, modern science tends to assume it doesn't exist, and any speculation outside of that understanding is mocked. This might often be justified, but there's a hubris in that, and physical science has limitations in my own personal view. At least when dealing with something like this. Science is concerned with the material. The immaterial is something it has no way of observing.
To go back to my generally coocoo bananas outlook on the world, I believe consciousness does indeed, on some level, pervade everything. At least as a kind of base energy, something that gains force under specific conditions but that nontheless exists as a potentiality in all matter. That isn't to say a rock has subjective experience, just that the base element of experience exists within it, and under the right biological or material conditions could manifest that potentiality.
I find that naturally (and this is where I lose most of reddit) these kinds of speculations have to go back to god. If not god in the traditional "man on throne" sense then god as he is described in the upanishads or Bhagavad Gita. Not a being but a conciousness that is universal in scope. Easter philosophy in general, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, tends to concern itself with conciosuness as being something universal rather than individualized. The ego is what emerges when a conscious entity loses sight of that overall pervading energy, and sees itself as seperate and lasting.
I meditate frequently. The theory behind meditation in most religions that practice it (and in some esoteric traditions in Christianity and Islam too) is not merely to quiet negative thoughts as many secular people interpret it (and why it is popular in self help circles). It is instead an attempt to strip away the subjective ego, to exist as pure conciousness devoid of illusion. Anybody who has gone into deep meditation can tell you that things get...well, weird. The physical body, at the very least, seems far less solid. You may have the impression of being multiple places at once, you feel flows of energy the source of which you can never quite determine ...
You may think I'm crazy (which I am), but reports like this are widespread and documented enough that if I am indeed crazy millions of otherwise sane people are also. These things aren't even new, they're described in often amazingly meticulous terms in various religious text.
Basically, when one experiences pure conciousness, one realizes how non-material its actual source may be.
The question then becomes, how much of us is lasting, and how much is illusion?
trollly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:34:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's the only real answer to the hard problem of consciousness.
cowsrock1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:10:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
relates to the whole brain in a vat thing. Blows my mind that I have no way to prove I actually exist.
yesanything ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:42:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I almost said there are infinite numbers of ways.
Let's just say there are many ways to prove existence. using scientific method. As for things like "its all a simulation" they are of the same ilk as other non-falsifiable woo woo.
cowsrock1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:12:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, brain in a vat is certainty woo woo of some type too, but how would you say it's falsifiable?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:13:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Perhaps the "tangible stuff" has been an illusion all along, and is just as "intangible" as our thoughts.
PettyPettyCats ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:54:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The brain is problem-solving machine. "You" are the self-referential parts of it's abstract, recursive problem solving. Something non-tangible just means it's represented symbolically in the matrix that is you.
TheDudeAbides19 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:30:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Observing something as tangible is a matter of magnification. A long time ago scientists stop trying to find what everything is made of because when they got past the molecular level they realized everything was a series of patterns and not made of"stuff". So when seeing something as a form of matter or tangible material it's really an observation of millions of complex patterns out of focus. Every single thing you see and experience is made of pattern and vibration. The reason you can't pass your hand through a table is because the amount of energy and vibration in the table is much faster than that of your hand. Where as water the molecules are moving much slower and you can pass your hand through it. Your consciousness is comprised of many different parts that are also created by vibration and pattern and the collective experience for every living being always feels like a central "I".
denikar ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:59:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consciousness and the concept of teleportation brings up some interesting and controversial scientific and religious topics. Assume there are two types of teleportation. One being that each molecule of your body is physically moved from location A to B, and re-assembled. The second being that your existing physical body is destroyed and a new one is created out of new molecules.
At what molecule transferred would your original copy be considered "dead"? When would you lose self-awareness? And in your new copy, when would you regain self-awareness? And what if you kept the original copy intact? From a religious standpoint, what happens to your "soul"? Does it get duplicated if the original is kept intact? My head explodes thinking about it.
Bagel_-_Bites ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:04:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think either it's all random, or there is a God, and It gave humans consciousness.
I grew up religious and have been doing a lot of introspective questioning recently about what i believe and dont don't believe. This is the crossroads I'm at right now.
Kopextacy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:22:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To me this also seems to assert that consciousness must form and not just always be. If there is no matter in existence, what is there to be conscious of? Also we know that consciousness effects matter therefore there seems to be some form of connection there, but again without one how can we have the other. Itโs like losing the dimension of time. If we lose that we also lose scale.
MasterChief864 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:20:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly it's inconceivable, people who say that the brain creates consciousness are actually very no scientific because it's complete speculation to assume that somewhere along the line the brain magically created consciousness, there's no evidence at all. I'm more convinced with the mystics and spiritual leaders and meditators who believe that consciousness is eternal and it's outside space and time, basically we are all the one eternal consciousness experiencing the world subjectively, life is eternal !!! ๐ mystical experiences and NDE's are some evidence for this
carlosmitholm ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:54:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've been out of my body. You are a conscious energy being in the same shape as your body, attached to it. I saw the next dimension and you are still alive. It feels good.
SalesAutopsy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:53:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like you're arguing for Creation?
Methane_superhero ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:50:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here's the wildest part: it appears to be that our brain must have been shaped by consciousness, not the other way around.
Source: The Master and his Emissary by psychologist Iain McGilchrist. Really great book that mixes neuroscience, philosophy and art.
erinthecute ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:15:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly, the biggest piece of evidence that we live in a simulation is the fact that consciousness makes absolutely no sense at all. It's fucking ridiculous fantasy bullshit. There is absolutely no reasonable justification for why I'm a conscious human being. It can't be real.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:49:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is only a problem because people assume that human beings are conscious a priori and then try to explain it.
Human beings may be conscious but the current body of scientific evidence does not suggest that; rather it suggests that human beings claim that they are conscious as a survival tactic by evolution and are in fact soulless robots.
And even if this is wrong this is what the current body of scientific evidence implies so naturally it's going to be a contradiction if you use it to investigate why human beings are conscious when it doesn't establish that they are.
The simplest explanation to work with is that human beings are soulless robots with no inner thoughts or introspection and just claim that they are conscious as a survival tactic.
AprilSRL ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 19:25:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm calling bullshit no this. For one, why would claiming consciousness be evolutionarily helpful? And why would we lie to ourselves about it? And doesn't experiencing things make us conscious? I don't know about you, but I'd discount the entirety of science before accepting I'm not conscious.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:29:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because it stops other humans from killing you and will inspire them to have sympathy?
I mean let's say parrots suddenly started to say "I am conscious; do not kill me." I think purely if a parrot says that it will mean humans will be hesitant just by those words so the parrots that do have a higher chance of surviving.
If by some freak mutation a parrot gains the ability at birth to say that that's an evolutionary advantage for that parrot and it most likely won't be killed by humans so more will end up saying it if it reproduces.
You assume that human beings experience anything at all. There is no evidence for that.
MAybe but you have no way to scientiically prove you are conscious.
It reminds me of that scene from Ghost in the Shell 1995 where the machine claims that he is conscious and that he does't want to die and he's countered with "No you aren't; you are a machine programmed for self preservation and you are simply saying that you are conscious as an adaptive technique to stop us from decommissioning you."โthe machine turns the argument around and says "You cannot prove you are conscious either; your own claims of consciousness are programmed by successive iterations of evolution as a similar survival tactic."
Raszhivyk ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:57:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm trying to wrap my head around this argument. What is this a survival tactic against if everything is nonconscious why would any value be placed on interior life over more demonstrable forms of use? This whole idea assumes that in some way being conscious is objectively better than not, and some how evolutionary processes would work toward that animals interact. It assumes that there is some conscious agent to judge another based on whether or not it is the same. Please, if you find the time, clarify me where I've misunderstood. It seems absurd.
Djinmaster ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:16:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But if all humans were soulless robots, where would they get the idea that some of them are not? And, moreover, if this group is apparently a minority, why are they afraid of them?
AprilSRL ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:50:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well yeah I can't prove it to anyone else, but I can prove it to myself. I experience things, therefore I'm conscious. I can't prove I experience things to you, but I know that I do.
I don't think evolution works like that... sympathy can and does develop without knowing anything about consciousness. While your parrot example does hold, I find it extremely unlikely that it would occur and become so prevalent.
farm_ecology ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:52:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do you really though?
One of the big flaws of human thought is that we often overestimate exactly how conscious we are.
AprilSRL ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:14:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not claiming any measurement of it, just that I experience things.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:56:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:02:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No it implies that at some point there was the first proto human that claimed to be conscious to other proto humans.
THat this happened is a deductive fact; at some point the first claim of consciousness has to have been made by some ancestor of modern humans.
I'm saying that this is the correct scientific answer yes; it's a far simpler scientific theory than trying to explain consciousness which right now is "magical".
Maybe so but there is no way to scientifically demonstrate it through any objective observation.
I'm saying that the current scientific understanding simply says that it doesn't and that human beings don't have them and just claim they have it as a survival tactic.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:24:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is literally the hard problem of consciousness. That science can't explain it. You do know this right?
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:26:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is a difference between not being able to explain why or how it happens and not being able to demonstrate that it happens.
People could demonstrate that the photo-electric effect happened before they could explain why or how it happened.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:29:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, some philosophers would argue that we can't actually conclude it happens if we don't know why or how (locke and spinoza...i think?).
But anyway, peep my other reply to you, I think it better addresses the distinction you're getting at and why you're still not really debunking the point of the hard problem.
engelbrektson ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:50:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Science is an extremely effective method to make sense of the universe that we can directly observe but we have to realize that it can be limited. To even observe and apply meaning to the universe we need a consciousness. In that sense consciousness is more basic than science.
edit: and even more basically, how are you having that thought if you aren't conscious? Don't you have inner thoughts or introspection?
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:22:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
While you're technically correct, the meat of the hard problem of consciousness is really getting at first-person experience, a.k.a., phenomenology. Many people consider this to be evidence of a consciousness, which is why we have that phrase.
So, if it suits you better, the hard problem of the phenomenological experience still remains.
Jeffreyrock ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:50:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
LMAO-- this is crazy talk. The mere fact of being able to question whether we are conscious is only possible by virtue of the fact that we are conscious. Everything in the human experience presupposes consciousness. The so-called hard problem owes it self to the fact that many are wedded to primitive materialist ontologies that deny the primacy of consciousness in favor of inert matter. The only thing I or anyone else knows for certain is that consciousness exists. Everything else is secondary.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:55:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Of course not, I can program a piece of computer program that asks the same question.
vtesterlwg ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:14:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
analogy
guy looks at sky, sees it's blue
2nd guy says 'oh you're assuming the sky is blue'
maybe actually look around before just saying 'oh you're assuming things' and see what's happening
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:22:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The major difference is that everyone can look at the sky but no one can look into another person's head.
Paperduck2 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:52:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unless you're a brain surgeon
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:55:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why would claiming that you are conscious and not a soulless robot be a survival tactic though?
By the way, I'm a soulless robot. I prefer other soulless robots to reproduce with and to protect. Like my soulless robot brothers and sisters, I consider conscious people to be a stain on the world and to be eradicated.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:58:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Means other humans won't kill you as easily?
Humans are hesitant to kill things that claim they are conscious.
I mean say you wanted to decommission your computer and suddenly the text "Please don't; I gained self awareness and do not want to die." appeared on screen.
I mean you'd probably think it was an elaborate hoax but it will surely give you pause to wonder about that.
Thus if computers somehow reproduced and had a genetic system with that the ones that via random mutation would put that on screen would be more likely to not be decomissioned and reproduce so it would become an evolved trait.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:12:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True, but wouldn't that be contingent on them being conscious as well? If they were soulless robots, what incentive would they have to spare things they consider conscious as opposed to part of a soulless robot collective like themselves? Kind of boils down to what is even considered consciousness at this point. What "level" of sentience is needed to be considered "sentient?" Like what line dividing sentience separates a plant from a fish or a microscopic organism?
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:18:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even if they are conscious what incentive do human beings in general have to not be completely selfish?
People often assume that evolution is perfect but it isn't. Altruism has been much studied in evolution and no real plausible explanation why a lot of animals portray highly altruistic behaviours while others don't can be found. A cat will basically never inconvenience itself one bit for the sake of another lifeform but apes, dolphins, and elephants are observed to go out of their way to not hurt other lifeforms and even going so far as to donate their own scarce resources. Elephants and humans often take care of wounded animals and provide them with nourishment and the evolutionary purpose for this is puzzling.
A likely explanation for this is just "evolution isn't perfect"; mirror neurons for humans were a net advantage in working as a team and group even though they also come with the disadvantage of altruism it seems and the two are hard for evolution to decouple. It's also why we still have toes and why males have nipples and barely operational mammary glands because it's hard for evolution to erase toes whilst keeping fingers and to keep female nipples whilst erasing the male ones.
VashhTS ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:05:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This will not be a popular opinion. But with a degree in philosophy, and obsession with neurotransmitters due to having paranoid schizophrenia. It's hard not to see us as this way. The brain is just an interpretation device of external reality. And in the case of mine? It started projecting an external reality via hallucinations based on somehow I chemical paranoid getting out of hand. Stress was definitely the Catalyst I know that for sure.
the_infinite ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:33:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We're meat computers.
GiveMeYourGuitar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:37:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Paging /u/DavidChalmers
thingandstuff ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:03:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
David Chalmers is a quack. Try Daniel Dennett.
GiveMeYourGuitar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:20:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐ good one
mewme-mow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:55:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You have the Nausea?
ROBANN_88 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:01:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
speaking of consiousness philosophy, that one cutscene in Wolfenstein New Order fucked me up
ClosetWeeb3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:41:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How is our experience of things non-tangible?
Forgetful________ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:20:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Without Going into detail that no one including myself would really under stand, it is because we are made of both tangible and intangible stuff.
Liefx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:36:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think conciousness is just our understanding of the passage of time. With no time passage, there is no memory of self, therefore no conciousness.
EquinsuOchaACE ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:49:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So mind blowing I don't even know what you mean.
How would you explain this to a 4th grader?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:26:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You know how science allows us to go and see, smell, hear, taste, or touch something? And we can measure it in some way? And we can explain, or at least try to explain how it works and what it is?
Why can't we do that with ourselves? Your own life experience. You right now in this living breathing present are constantly feeling something. But what does that feeling feel like? And how can it be described and explained by science? That's the hard problem.
marysue999 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:35:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This helps me: https://www.consciousnessitself.org
Inane_newt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:48:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consciousness is the narrative that we tell ourselves about what we have already done.
Xudda ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:19:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How does one define "tangible stuff"? Where does one find any "tangible stuff" in reality? How does one differentiate between the mind and the physical world? The question is, in that form, entirely meaningless
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:32:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Absolutely not. Whether objects genuinely exist in an external reality doesn't matter for this hard problem. The fact remains that you yourself know there's a difference between the phenomenological experience of looking at a rock, and how we conceive of the rock and interact with it.
I mean, I guess you could claim you don't do this, but I would've expected you to try jumping off a building and surviving by now.
Rogue_Zealot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:27:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Talos Principle
rodneyabcd ยท 5682 points ยท Posted at 14:02:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've always been a fan of Sorites* paradox.
Would you allow someone to cut off one of your fingers if they paid you 1 cent? Probably not. How about four billion dollars? I know I would and I'm confident that you probably would too.
This establishes two things, that there are sums of money that you will accept to cut off your finger, and there are sums of money that you will decline to cut off your finger.
Because of how money works. The difference between the highest figure you'll say no to, and the lowest figure you'd say yes to, is exactly one cent.
These numbers objectively exists, but they're impossible to grasp. Pick the lowest number you can think of accepting, and tell me honestly that you'd decline a counter offer of exactly one cent less.
[deleted] ยท 1834 points ยท Posted at 15:41:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you have a gradient of red to blue you can say that one side is red and another side is blue but you will not be able to say if the colour in the middle, or even a third from the left or right, is red or blue.
Edit: Yes, I know the colour in the middle of the two is purple, but for the sake of this explanation you can only choose "red" or "blue" as your answer.
jfarrar19 ยท 1114 points ยท Posted at 18:13:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm color blind. Fuck you.
uh_oh_hotdog ยท 536 points ยท Posted at 19:16:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Better?
Eternity_Incarnate ยท 132 points ยท Posted at 19:34:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
FTFY
IthotItoldja ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:53:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait. How many shades of gray are there?
zoomtzt ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 01:05:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
50.
dwbnerd ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 03:54:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually only women can see 50 shades of grey, men just see a poorly written book.
Yes I stole this from somewhere don't kill me!
TheDarkDeciever ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 22:35:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Color blind doesnโt mean that you canโt see colors. They are just usually muddled or hard to tell apart, and usually only specific colors.
oneandonlyNightHawk ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:08:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unless you have monochromatism. Then you just see grey.
TheDarkDeciever ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:25:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Good point. But I would say in general people are referring to the more common color confusion type on a day to day basis.
oneandonlyNightHawk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:14:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, most likely.
AngrySmapdi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:44:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness
If real, they'd have no way of knowing which section of a specific grey was what color.
JohnathanTeatime ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:21:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Change grey and gray
uh_oh_hotdog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:08:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think I'm fine, thanks
JohnathanTeatime ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:14:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
joke
You
uh_oh_hotdog ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:29:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I should be embarrassed. But I'm not ashamed to say I didn't notice a 50 Shades of Grey reference right away.
JohnathanTeatime ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:34:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Still wrong
As you changed all the colors to gray I said change gray to grey and gray
uh_oh_hotdog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:47:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look man, I'm no grammar Nazi, but no one could have interpreted that when your original reply was just "Change grey and gray".
JohnathanTeatime ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:54:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i think you were overthinking it.
ThePeachinator ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:13:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh fuck I'm dying of laughter in bed right now Thank you. I haven't laughed like that in a long time!
Macky88 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:37:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/r/boottoobig
GeekyMeerkat ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:01:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nice little poem:
You can say one side is red,
You can say another is blue,
I'm color blind.
Fuck you.
NoThrowLikeAway ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:11:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They say the red of a rose is divine,
Yet others prefer shades of blue,
I'm motherfucking color blind,
so fuck you, fuck you, and fuck you.
Eboo143 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:22:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well I'm actually blind, ya privileged dick!! /s
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:46:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Im color deaf. I know how you feel.
TastyBrainMeats ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:05:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Roses are gray, violets are gray, I'm dead and colorblind.
FIVE_DARRA_NO_HARRA ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:42:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can't fuck me if you can't see me
GameGeek15 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:34:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why is it in bing tho
TryNottoFaint ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:57:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, graydient.
turbulentcupcakes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:18:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just uncolorblind yourself ya knob
A_favorite_rug ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:32:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Aw man, you are really missing out on these sick-ass colors.
AngrySmapdi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:41:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Congrats on being part of 0.0001% of society, which is the only type of colorblind that can't see the difference between red and blue! I realize it probably sucks in a lot of ways, but still pretty cool. Ever do an AMA about not being able to see any color at all, but just gradients?
jfarrar19 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:46:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Gray. So much grey. They say there are only 50 ways to see it, but there are more far far more
My_Vegemite ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:36:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
fuck me just like life fucked you?
FoxyBrownMcCloud ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:30:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/r/boottoobig
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:31:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
pink and brown then.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 19:46:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Spellingblind too apparently; colorblind is a compound word.
jfarrar19 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:08:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nope. Just stupid.
sapphon ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:34:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's just a begged question; "is this red or blue" is asked and allows no good response where "what color is this" allows a perfectly appropriate response.
GU3MS ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:17:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That might imply that OPs question is flawed too
ToGryffindor ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:59:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Trick question. It's purple.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:31:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not the point; you can't say if it's red or blue. As in, red or blue are the only options for you to choose between.
dragonbeorn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:45:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember reading that purple doesn't really exist because of some light spectrum shenanigans.
ToGryffindor ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:03:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought that was magenta.
AmadeusMop ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:02:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Magenta doesn't have an associated wavelength, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just reddish blue.
Akeera ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:13:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Depends on what type of red and blue you choose, haha
Source: I paint a lot. Sometimes the mixed color canโt rightly be described as โpurpleโ as most people would immediately associate it as. This misconception caused lots of confusion when I initially started out.
Jaspeey ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:44:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is different from the sorties paradox, but imagine I gave you a million hues of blue that go from light to dark. If there's a hue of blue that you can't see, would you be able to imagine it?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:25:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Often times we only perceive by juxaposing something. Without context there is no real meaning to anything.
Radix2309 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:03:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Some cultures don't actually see purple as a separate colour. They would just call it a type of blue or type of red. You can see it linguistically as well.
twoBrokenThumbs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:07:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol. My wife used to do interviews with child actors. A lot of them were so in this rut of questions they expected you to ask and them to answer. They were just boring, not engaged, and just going through the motions so she would ask them, "when does blue become people?" The dumbfounded reactions were hysterical. Usually it snapped them out of their rut and they actually started holding a conversation.
Flyboy142 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:17:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Um...it can't be a gradient if there is no intermediary colour. That is literally impossible. This analogy is innacurate.
JargonR3D ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:08:13 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bled ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:19:11 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fucking cancer
Ace-of-Spades88 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:50:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wouldn't the color on the middle be purple?
miezmiezmiez ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:31:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then where is the cut off point between red and purple?
You can make the gradient more and more finegrained but you'll never see a meaningful difference between two shades that are the equivalent of one cent apart (in analogy to the money case).
It illustrates the concept of vagueness quite well, especially when you take it one step further like this
Ace-of-Spades88 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:38:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree!
I was just pointing out that the middle point between red and blue would be purple. It's a defined color that is a combination of the two. I think discerning the difference between a shade of red and purple (or blue and purple) is a more valid dilemma though. As far as I know there isn't really a definitive "middle color" between red and purple, or blue and purple.
-calufrax- ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:18:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It could be purple...
mahbluebird ยท -19 points ยท Posted at 17:26:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not quite. You can't have your finger "kinda cut off but not really".
Rosetti ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 18:09:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The finger being cut off isn't the gradient in his analogy. The money is the gradient.
mahbluebird ยท -10 points ยท Posted at 21:08:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If that's the case that doesn't really support the counterargument. If anything then it supports it.
Rosetti ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:15:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What counterargument?
He was just offering another example of the same conundrum.
mahbluebird ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:44:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno, man. I'm just kinda confused. Philosophy in particular is just something I can't word out and explain things for, like I can think of what I mean to say and it makes sense to me, but I try to say it and it just falls apart.
bluesheep123 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 17:34:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just the tip
mahbluebird ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:51:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
;)
svenson_26 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:16:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, but you could have a grey area where on some given days, depending on your current situation and mood, you might take it, and other days you wouldnt.
mahbluebird ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:53:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree, however at any given moment and any one specific given mood and situation, it can be assumed that there would be a cutoff point. This difference leads way to the point being argued in the first place.
Groggolog ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:20:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
go back to your wormhole nerd
clutchheimer ยท 958 points ยท Posted at 16:33:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are many other situations where this also comes in to play. Basically, all life is lived at the limits. For example:
A man is shot. A paramedic arrives and performs the appropriate aid. The man lives. Had the paramedic arrived later, the man would have died. There must be a point where had the paramedic started his aid even one picosecond later, the man would have died. This is like the limit of his life. Beyond here, lies only death.
There is always a point of inflection, no matter how smooth the curve seems, one point is always where everything changes irrevocably.
rodneyabcd ยท 775 points ยท Posted at 16:37:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One of the most fun examples I've heard was on r/showerthoughts.
"It's easy to picture a station wagon full of toothpicks, but impossible to picture one so full that it couldn't fit one more."
Taggy2087 ยท 376 points ยท Posted at 19:57:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This has happened to me before but I was the wagon and my socks were the toothpicks. I could carry every single sock, except one. I would have them all in tow, take one step, bam one sock falls out. I pick the fucker up with my hand and bam one more sock falls out of my arms. It happened years ago but honestly I had one of these paradoxical moments where I realized that there was a limit to how many socks I could carry and that one sock could cross that threshold. It was a bizarre but memorable moment in my existence.
Bravd ยท 139 points ยท Posted at 23:37:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Should have put that last sock on one hand like a mitten.
exhaustedoctopus ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 03:53:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This guy socks.
BrotherM ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:35:23 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was just going to say that...
unholymackerel ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:03:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or a sock puppet
NegaByte ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:12:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This has happened to me frequently enough that I've given it a fair bit of thought. It's not that you can carry all but one sock, it's that you're dropping one sock at a time. If you continue walking without picking up the fallen sock, you'll find that more would fall.
Randomd0g ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:56:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is me literally every time it's washing day. There is always exactly one sock that ends up on the floor.
elkevelvet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:28:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Were the socks paired and bunched (you know, where you ball the pairs up together)? Because that exact situation is very familiar to me.
thatG_evanP ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:23:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's happened to me multiple times with loads of laundry.
CirrusVision20 ยท 120 points ยท Posted at 19:03:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Like a pile of paper. When does it start getting heavy?
Canadianabcs ยท 133 points ยท Posted at 20:07:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The pile of paper is heavy only after youve pick it up.
clinkyec ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 21:54:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I heard "The paradox goes as follows: considerย a heap of sandย from whichย grainsย are individually removed.ย Oneย might construct the argument, using premises, as follows:1000000ย grainsย ofย sandย isย a heap of sand(Premiseย 1)ย A heap of sand minus one grain is stillย a heap."
Cabbage4998 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:42:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not a paradox, that's just the downfall of subjective words. What I mean is that there is no objective "heavy", it is always used in relation to something lighter than it
CirrusVision20 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:45:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean heavy as in you can definitely notice the weight, and you have to actually work to keep it in your hands.
YoshiAndHisRightFoot ยท 56 points ยท Posted at 18:14:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whoa, dude...
fnord_happy ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:28:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/r/whoadude
unholymackerel ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:03:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Peas are so small, you can always eat one more pea.
pahein-kae ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:56:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's pretty easy to imagine. Compared to actually doing that, anyhow. That gets into complex geometrical tetris-like problems that I'm fairly sure don't have discovered solutions yet.
Though if I was modelling it in 3D, I'd probably just fake it with textures.
monsto ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 09:05:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Saw a video the other day about coastlines that introduced something i never considered:
You can never reach 100% accuracy on the length of a coastline.
2Punx2Furious ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:29:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can always fit more if you have enough strength, until it collapses into a black hole.
Serdaigle15 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:45:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is why I always had small stuff to my suitcase when Iโm packing.
majesticshit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:54:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol- you get really good at figuring out what your toothpick line is when you're traveling and you are at the 50.01 pound line and its this sock or extra toothbrush
iWizblam ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:51:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What about when you're not longer putting toothpicks in the station wagon, and are now just putting toothpicks onto toothpicks. Essentially there's no limit, because then you could start using adhesives, or build upwards, and sideways, since it just has to be on the toothpicks. I think the limit is when you can no longer see any station wagon left to place a toothpick.
helm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:38:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, I can. You picture it as a phase transition. After the phase transition is complete, all accessible areas of the block are solid. like a big block of wood.
Etheo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:17:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's quite similar to the idea of "the last straw that broke the camel's back", isn't it?
BeardsuptheWazoo ยท 76 points ยท Posted at 20:20:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As a 911 dispatcher these scenarios literally happen and mean I either helped kill someone or helped save their life.
I once had a trailer fire I felt I could have handled better, brought coffee to the firefighters who had to stay with the body. Seeing that guy...
I reviewed my call with my supervisor, and the delay was negligible, but I felt awful for a while.
clutchheimer ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 20:41:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know if I could handle that guilt. Thanks for doing a difficult job.
BeardsuptheWazoo ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 20:52:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't do it any more. Consider getting back into it sometimes but not sure.
Shortneckbuzzard ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 06:50:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This might be looked down upon but iv been a paramedic for 7 years. If itโs their time to go itโs their time to go. I have had calls where I hit every green light in route, gave flawless interventions, short transport time, relatively young healthy patient and they still died. On the flip side iv had calls where everything went wrong literally the ambulance broke down on scene the person was old with multiple mortality factors I couldnโt start an IV to save my life and they still lived. Im not a religious person but if the universe decides itโs their time then there isnโt much you or I or anyone can do. Even if you do make a crucial mistake. Itโs almost like destiny.
Serdaigle15 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:47:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As someone who is learning first aid and CPR. What should we pay attention to and what should we tell you when we call?
Iโm trying to be more aware of my surroundings and noticing anything odd, which is a first step. Iโm not on my phone all the time.
Benito_Fuzelini ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 21:00:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But due to the nature of time and it's relationship with a human's organic computation (in whatever way you look at it - chemical reactions or romantic conciousness) - if the paramedic on site decides to think for that one picosecond more, his decided angle of attack (medical procedure) could dramatically change due to the well noted incrongruity between our (human) decision(s) and indecision(s) with respect to time.
So, what i am trying to say is there an arguably perpetual stream of inflection points... No ?
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:00:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would agree that the inflection point might be influenced by the tactics chosen by the paramedic, as well as by the skill of said paramedic.
Soul-Burn ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:26:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An event horizon of sorts.
jungl3j1m ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:18:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Have you seen "Lola Rennt" (Eng. ver. "Run, Lola, Run")? Deals with exactly this.
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:40:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have seen it, but it has been years.
mrjlee12 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:20:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Um no, the point is there ISNโT a point of inflection sometimes, thatโs why itโs a paradox. OPโs example with the money shows how though there may seem to be a bright line somewhere, there actually isnโt (u rly wouldnโt take one cent less?!)
clutchheimer ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:13:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its not a paradox. The point must exist. It sure seems like the one cent less thing would invalidate it, but it doesn't. If there is a continuous line with one state on one side, and another state on the other, there must be a point within the line where the state changes.
mrjlee12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ur objectively wrong. This IS a paradox, and has been recognized as since Ancient Greece. Look up Sorites Paradox (as mentioned by OP). Ur reasoning of there needing to be a point is logically incorrect.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:40:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How about you learn to spell your? Pretty simple. Next, how about you also look up the Sorites paradox yourself and note that many proposed resolutions exist. The paradox that you cite is actually only a paradox if there is vagueness and the definition is arbitrary. My point, which is valid, is that if a state change occurs, and the timeline is continuous, there must be a point where before the state makes the change.
obscureferences ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:38:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think it's a fixed point in time, because arriving earlier or later may change the paramedics performance. Having less time to save his life may make them try harder or do better under pressure, than taking it a bit more calmly with less perceived time pressure.
Too many variables.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:23:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's entirely possible that for at least one value of x, the patient lives if treatment time is x seconds but dies if treatment time is x+.01 seconds. E.g., maybe the paramedic moves a bit more slowly if he is too confident that he has enough time, or if he arrives before the shooter flees the shooter rattles his nerves by threatening to shoot him too. So what you might end up with is a probability curve that looks like this.
ARsurfer19 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:02:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was a paramedic breifly and we never learned the second derivitive test.
CountSheep ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:17:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This sounds like a weird calculus problem.
Just_an_AMA_noob ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:16:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Let me answer that specific example. In this case, death is caused by blood loss and oxygen deprivation of the brain. As the brain spends more and more time without oxygen, certain parts of it become damaged beyond repair. Because of this, death isnโt absolute, itโs a gradient of cognitive function. Itโs just that there comes a certain point where so much cognitive function is lost that they might as well be dead. Even if the parts of the brain that tell you to breathe become irreparably damaged, you could still extract the remaining cells and culture them in a Petri dish.
TLDR: A man is only completely dead when every last cell dies. Itโs just that sometimes, the remaining man thatโs still alive isnโt worth keeping around.
clutchheimer ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:24:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I appreciate your comment, but I do think it doesn't address the point at hand. What matters is that a point exists where some almost inconceivably short period of time before the person lives, and after, he dies. How we define physical death, or even what it actually is, doesn't matter.
Just_an_AMA_noob ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:51:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, I think I get it now. I thought people were just saying that itโs impossible to find that point, while I think it is. We may not know how to find it yet, but as our definition of death becomes more precise and we develop better tools to find it, it will eventually be possible.
In other words, I misinterpreted the comment and I thought you were saying the exact opposite of what you actually meant. I still donโt think itโs worth a downvote though.
clutchheimer ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:55:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I didn't down vote you. I never do that. Well, I might only down vote if something were amazingly inflammatory.
Just_an_AMA_noob ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:35:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know it wasnโt you. Iโm just mad someone else did.
Sp3ctr37 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:21:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Kind of like the asymptote of a graph, correct?
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:37:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An asymptote is a line that a function approaches but never reaches. A point of inflection is where the sign of the slope changes from positive to negative, or vice versa (technically, the inflection point is where it changes to zero).
NSAyyylmao ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:48:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That assumes that every action has to lead to the same reaction at even the smallest of smallest of things. Basically, something has the be perfectly predictable if all subject matter is given.
That is not the case in real life.
kogasapls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:40:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
... if the curve is given by a differentiable function, which comprise precisely 0% of functions. Most things aren't as well behaved as a differentiable function.
kopkiwi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:42:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like this, this is really fascinating.
sdmitch16 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:55:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sure there are many picoseconds where the paramedics could have started and the man's blood loss and low oxygen in the brain would have resulted in damage.
narof22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:37:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow
dietderpsy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:01:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or you could look at it this way, people are born and people die everyday, so nothing has changed, so it depends on how precise you want to be.
Westergo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:48:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, and death is something a lot of people agree on would change things irrevocably. But the paramedic situation is not truly as binary as it seems. Paramedic arrives in 5 minutes: guy lives and seems to go on to live a healthy life (but is nevertheless damaged from the event). Paramedic arrives in 6 minutes: minor brain damage. 7 minutes: brain damage, which irrevocably affects his life even if it does not cripple him entirely. 8 minutes: heavy brain damage. 9 minutes: vegetable. 10 minutes: death. Is the difference between a vegetable and death really that different for all intents and purposes? What about the difference between heavy brain damage and being a vegetable? Many people would actually prefer death over those states.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:09:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
None of that is relevant to the discussion at hand. The quality of the life is immaterial. The point of the exercise is that a time must exist where a Planck second before they are alive, and now they are dead. We think things are not that atomic, but in fact they are.
It is the literal straw that broke the camels back.
Westergo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:19:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Instead of the consequences, let's put it only in terms of life/death, then. It is still gradual, when we take into consideration that we all die, and it is just a matter of timing:
If the paramedic arrives too late: the guy is dead on arrival.
If the paramedic arrives within 10 minutes: the guy dies in the hands of the paramedic.
Within 8 minutes: the guy dies in the ambulance.
6 minutes: the guy dies in the hospital.
4 minutes: the guy dies after a few months (sepsis, etc.)
2 minutes: the guy's lifespan is shortened by 10 years.
1 minutes: the guy's lifespan is shortened by 5 years
0 minutes: lifespan shortened by 3 years.
-30 seconds: the paramedic prevents the accident and lifespan is not affected! (but he still dies eventually)
We all die, it is just a matter of when we die. The planck second is meaningless here. Timing just affects severity.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:25:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, severity is meaningless. The actual consequences do not matter. This exercise is about the linearity of incidences. The Planck second is the crux of the discussion. Pick any one of your effects, and a time exists where one Planck second earlier, it is avoided. THAT is the point.
Westergo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:43:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In my example, death is avoided nowhere. So where is the crucial Planck second located in my example?
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:28:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Death is irrelevant. Change of state is what matters. You tried to move the goal posts by removing the idea of death, but none of that matters. The Planck second exists immediately before each state change.
Westergo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:35:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Death is the change of state (alive -> dead) that is discussed here, though?
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:43:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pick any change of state that you prefer. I used death in the original example, but it could be green to blue, Coke to Pepsi, anything really.
Westergo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:55:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Of course. I focused on the death example because I think it can be rejected there. While there may be a few convincing examples out there, I'm thinking that generally whenever an empirical example is given, actually zooming in on the that example (by someone with sufficient expertise on that particular subject) will similarly result in a rejection of this idea as well. 'States' are, ultimately, concepts that we've made up. They generally work quite well in every-day life, but every now and then they create problems. (Another death example: different countries have different laws for when someone is legally dead: transporting a braindead body on life support between them can actually make an 'administratively dead' person alive again). Since states are made up, the transition between them is also up to debate. Therefore, the 'physical moment' when a transition happens is generally blurred; i.e. it happens more in our minds than really in the physical world. I guess this is why it is the realm of philosophy and most applied scientists don't concern themselves with this.
Gullex ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:57:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This reminds me of the abortion debate about "when life begins".
I don't think there's a single magical moment where something suddenly becomes alive whereas the very moment before it was not alive. Life is a continuum.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:06:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The thing is, there must be a spot where directly before it is not something and directly after it is something. If you are alive one moment and dead the next, it must be possible to pinpoint the exact spot where that occurred. Think of it like a number line, it is continuous, so therefore the spot must exist.
Gullex ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:10:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why must there be such a spot?
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:26:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because the timeline is continuous. If one condition exists on one side of the line, and a different condition exists on the other, then at some point along the line the change must occur.
Gullex ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:28:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The spot is arbitrary and I don't believe has some inherent, fundamental existence.
We can just be OK that it's a continuum, and that we have to agree on spots so we can communicate in society. There's no problem with that as long as we remember the spots we chose don't really mean anything besides the meaning we ascribe to them.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:29:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If the timeline is continuous, and a state change happens, the point exists necessarily. It may or may not be arbitrary, but it must exist.
Gullex ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:30:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If it's arbitrary and it exists, then anything exists if we say it does and what then is the meaning of "exist"?
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:42:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Arbitrary has no relevance to existence. My choice of lunch is arbitrary, but it certainly exists.
Gullex ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:44:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
???
But that assemblage of food doesn't have something written into the fabric of its existence as "clutchheimer's lunch". It's just a collection of stuff you've decided to call "lunch".
I could call it my lunch too. Can it exist simultaneously as both your lunch and my lunch?
Buhms ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:05:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
'one point is always where everything changes irrevocably'
Makes me think of this stunning photo from the Syrian Civil War, which captures the exact miliesecond a squad of rebels gets hit by a tank shell. SFW(ish)
InherentlyJuxt ยท 154 points ยท Posted at 15:43:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think this problem has strong ties to the psychological concept of โframingโ. Essentially what it is is if you present a stimulus to a person, itโll affect their decisions in near future situations. Like, if you show a person a video on how car salesperson uses tactics to get you to pay more than you want, the person will walk into a dealership more skeptical of the salespeople than if they werenโt shown the video.
I think starting at a high value and working your way down will result in you picking an overall lower value because youโve only taken off a cent for each iteration, right? But I think it also works the same in reverse.
So theoretically thereโs a set point where youโll do take the money, but I think because humans can be primed for stimulus and because we learn and adapt to situations as they arise (such as being asked that question), itโs easy to sway that value lower or higher by asking the question in a certain way.
nomorewetsocks ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 06:40:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The concept of anchoring explains this too. The first peice of information we are given on a subject, whatever that subject may be, acts as an anchor to the range of choices or desicions an individual will deem acceptable to make. Intrestingly, this happens as soon as the information has been conveyed to you, whether you believe it to be true or not. The only time anchoring doesn't affect your thoughts and desicions if you are aware that you are about to recieve a piece of information, and decide it to be false before being exposed to it. Thus you will not take in the information to the same degree had you not already deicded it's plausibility. This is a bias in our thinking that is commonly overlooked but used by many corporations, whether they know it or not.
For example, used car salesman can set the price of their cars to serve as an anchor for their customers. A salesman could set the price of 1996 toyota camry at $10,000 USD. Even though any customer would know that this value is grossly overinflated, that price tag serves as an achor for the offers he will make on the car, should he choose to buy it. So instead of making an offer based on what the customer knows the value of the car to be, he makes one which is closer to $10,000.
Another example which may not benefit a company is through damage caps, which are maximum limits on the amount of damages that can be awarded for a case. Say a damage cap is set at $500,000. This number serves as an anchor for all cases, regardless of their severity. So monetary settlements are far more likely to be higher on average, and closer to $500,00 for minor cases.
This concept can also be extrapolated to objects, colours, etc. and I believe that is what framing encompasses if I am remembering correctly (forgive me if not).
This bias in thinking and so many others are covered in detail in "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. If this stuff interests you at all its a must read
DecorationOnly ยท 138 points ยท Posted at 16:25:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This decision would be different when asked at different times. Some days youโd be more apt to take a deal, others not so much.
With each cent added, youโd increase the probability of a yes response, not that there is a one cent difference between a yes and a no.
David_K_Manner ยท 156 points ยท Posted at 19:31:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think Sorties' paradox would be better illustrated with a physical problem rather than one of desire (that maybe time dependent).
One grain of sand is definitely not a heap. Two grains is also not a heap. 1 millions grains of sand is a heap. Take one out it is still a heap. At what step, does the heap not be a heap anymore? And is a single grain of sand really the difference between a heap and not a heap?
Masterjason13 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:16:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think a similar situation arises by thinking about a small number, say 2. I think weโd all agree that adding 1 more doesnโt make it a large number, because 3 is still small. Following that logic, you can keep adding 1 to the number forever and it will never be large, because adding 1 to a small number means itโs still small.
DOG-ZILLA ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 21:21:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
3 grains of sand could be a heap. Just a really very tiny one. It depends on the true definition of what constitutes the rules to what we call a โheapโ.
[deleted] ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 21:06:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But it's ridiculous to consider that because a heap is not an objectively defined thing
David_K_Manner ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 21:19:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True, that is where the paradox arises from. We know for sure at one end of the scale(of quantity here), is not a heap and the other end is a heap, but there is part at the middle which is indistinguishable. No boundary for the two outcomes and not defined boundary even for the vague middle.
Another physical example I can think of is Reynold's number for a fluid flow. A small number means a laminar flow and large number means a turbulent flow. There is an indistinguishable middle where flow transitions from laminar to turbulent and back at random. But even the middle is not clear to determine.
fnord_happy ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:29:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The toothpick example osted above is best I think
MajoraXX ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:58:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then we provide an objective definition for it:
A heap is any collection of discrete countable objects arranged such that at least one of the objects is supported off the ground entirely by others of the collection.
Paradox solved.
Masterjason13 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:16:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So I stack two grains of sand. Is it now a heap?
MajoraXX ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:05:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, so long as the top grain is supported entirely by the bottom grain.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 10:32:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's why using the dictionary definition is completely wrong: words are defined by how people use them, not by the dictionary. Nobody would say a heap is two grains of sand, hence why a heap is not an objectively defined word, but varies depending on a person's perception
runasaur ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:21:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
yup, its also why we have standards and stuff. We define a "foot" by an actual distance of measurement instead of the actual size of someone's foot.
Reminds me of a geotech class I took, dealing with soils (dirt, which has its own set of definitions)... When you hear the word "gravel", you might think of little rocks, maybe half an inch, maybe an inch, we all know what "gravel" is because we've walked on it or seen it around. The actual definition of geotechnical "gravel" is particles bigger than 2 mm that's pretty much a large grain of sand, but because of how things behave, that's where the line of "gravel" was defined.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:39:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Heap" is an idea, and not a physical thing. It exist in the realm of the abstract. One person might say something is a heap, while another would not. Also the brain isn't like a computer where it says x number of grains is a heap, but rather when the circuit that sees it as a heap overwhelms the circuit that says it's not a heap. To say that there is a magic moment when something is a heap or not is kinda silly because it's just competing neural circuits.
Most, if not all paradoxes are built on bad assumptions.
koolkeano ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:41:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue this would be better looked at on a logarithmic scale. If a heap begins at a value in 104 grains, y*103 would be a very small heap. 104 a heap. 105 a large heap. Etc
Still given this I agree that there is a point where it turns from no heap classification to classified as some type of heap.
For me and the fingers I'd say yes to anything 106. Probably still snap up high 105, but anything 104 I'd say no. As we are talking in such large terms one or two pennies makes very little odds.
CommandoDude ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:17:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You should ask a Geologist.
Professionals know how to sort that shit. The answer is "how many until I reach a certain percent or other value on my measuring tool?"
Oh, also, sand isn't humans so it's not even close to the same. Apples and oranges have more in common.
AmadeusMop ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:06:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same thing applies. At some ambiguous number of grains, whether or not those grains are a heap will be different when asked at different times.
1975-2050 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:14:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a semantic matter.
Pingwinho ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:55:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're all trying to solve a continuous problem by discrete means.
mating_toe_nail ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:31:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are lots conditions and categories where the boundary fuzzy. Even if we restrict ourselves to a strict, deterministic 1d โlineโ boundaries where you can say you are one side or the other, there are still lots of systems where given some point itโs hard to tell whether you are one side of the boundary or the other, for example: the boundary of the Mandelbrot set.
I donโt see how a paradox arises. It seems like overly simplistic thinking. Itโs assuming that the only information needed to answer the question โis this a heap sandโ is the number of grains of sand when in reality many other things go into answering that question, such proximity to the viewer, time of day, etc.
Itโs like saying you canโt get a function of one variable to answer solve a problem because you actually need one of 5 variables.
rodneyabcd ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 16:29:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There has to be. There are numbers that will be accepted and there will be numbers that will be declined. A maybe that remains a maybe is just a no.
DecorationOnly ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 17:28:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs a maybe that depend on the thousands of other variables that are involved in decisions and their interactions with each other, and these variable can fluctuate from moment to moment.
If in a hypothetical world, you were able to freeze all variables, yes, there would a line drawn. However, many of the variables would be highly dynamic and highly interactive (ie high variable A means yes, unless high variable B, that is unless high variable C or D, etc).
Simply saying โthere is a point that your decision flipsโ is an over simplified view of what actually happens when making decisions. The reality is that our decisions are affected by so many variables, that framing a decision as a binary switch is unrealistic.
ClosetWeeb3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:51:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Completely agree. It assumes that a direct comparison between the value of the money and the value of the finger are the only factors thus there has to be a one cent difference where you will definitely be yes or definitely be know. Decisions don't work like that. 500 could be no. 10000 could be yes. The range in between doesn't have to fall on either "black or white" with regards to what your answer will be.
karnoculars ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:51:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't even know what that means. There are literally only two answers you can give, yes or no. That's as black and white as it gets. At some point, you will stop saying no and start saying yes.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:20:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But the point is that the point where you switch over is highly dependent on so many factors, some of which aren't even measurable, so saying that the difference is a cent is misleading since it'll be fluctuating from one second to the next. If you froze time and looked at it, you'd be able to pick an exact amount, but increase the time to even a small window, and there's going to be dozens of different amounts that would switch you over within that timeframe.
LordLoss01 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How about if I were to travel back in time and ask the question again but this time for one cent less? I keep doing so and I will eventually figure out the cutoff point.
armrha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:22:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This diatribe on decision making has nothing to do with the paradox. You still have to say yes or no, and apparently there is some point where the addition of one cent will turn no to yes, no matter how many "factors" that fit into your decision making.
Hunterofshadows ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:45:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs the difference between theory and reality. In theory, there is a clean line drawn with a one cent difference. In reality it isnโt that simple.
Itโs like trying to get of a cake by cutting it in half over and over. In theory you can cut it in half forever. In reality you will reach a point will it is functionally gone
calaboozer ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 17:52:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But "maybe" isn't an accepted response to the question. Either you cut your finger off or you don't. The point at which you cut your finger off might change based on the variables you talk about, but there will always be a dollar amount at which you decide to cut your finger off.
DecorationOnly ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:08:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs not them saying โmaybeโ. Itโs a probability of saying yes. Itโs โmaybeโ in the sense that without knowing every variable and itโs affect, you canโt say with certainty. Until the decision is made, itโs not possible to be definitive, assuming you are considering all the variables involved. In a hypothetical world, you can assume variables. In the real world, you cannot.
calaboozer ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:24:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can you give an example? I just don't see how it's impossible to be definitive if the only two options are yes and no.
Say you played this out in the real world. You say no the first 99,999 times, but then when offered $100,00 you take the money. Where is the maybe in this situation? You can look back and determine the exact point at which the answer changed from no to yes
jo4short84 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:40:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What he's saying is that there's a probability distribution around saying "yes" which is a function of the money being offered AND other factors.
A simple example would be to consider only two variables as relevant to the decision - the money offered and the price of a luxury item you're currently interested in buying. Suppose I'm currently looking at buying a video game console. In that case maybe my probability of saying "yes" given I'm offered $100 is .001, but my probability of saying "yes" given I'm offered $500 is 1 since that $500 will get me all that I want right now. Now if instead the probability of "yes" also depended on a third variable - let's call it responsibility - then my probability of "yes" given I'm offered $500 drops to 0.00001, since it would cost me more long term in medical costs and potential lost income than the $500 reward. But what if I was drunk when this offer was made? In that case the probability may jump up to 0.5. There are many time and location specific variables that will influence the probability of saying "yes" to a given amount at a given moment.
Disclaimer: I'm a statistician, not a philosopher. This is how I immediately framed this problem in my mind when I read the top level comment, but I'm sure a philosopher would find something to argue about with my reasoning.
DecorationOnly ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:12:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs just one example, as well. There are thousands of variables that could play out that would affect your decision.
oddsbluestones ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:00:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the issue I take with this line of reasoning is that all the other possible situations seem ultimately irrelevant to the question. What if I was drunk? What if I was desperate for money? It doesnโt matter, all that matters is that the question is being asked now, and the situational variables of this specific instance are the only ones that are relevant. However, perhaps taking this down to cents instead of perhaps 50 or even 10 dollar increments, makes it seem much more dramatically unrealistic than it is. There has to be a line. The only thing is, I donโt think the line could ever be found unless this was a serious cut your finger off or donโt situation, in which the finger cutter offer believably had the money promised to the finger cut offee. Everything else is all conjecture.
DecorationOnly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:37:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They arenโt irrelevant.
If you are looking at a single moment in time, there will be a line. But from moment to moment, that line will fluctuate as variables change. Ask me today, the answer will be different than if you ask me tomorrow,
In hypothetical terms, you can just assume all the variables are constant. In practical terms where the world isnโt frozen in time, youโre looking at probabilities rather than definitive answers.
oddsbluestones ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:15:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But it only matters that Iโm asking you today. Your answer should I ask you tomorrow is different than your answer now maybe, but who cares? Iโm asking you now
jo4short84 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:42:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but my point isn't only that these variables influence your decision, but that answering "yes" at any given moment follows some probability distribution. The outside variables will affect this distribution, but there is still randomness inherent in this exercise.
If you were to fix every possible influential variable and repeat this experiment over and over again, sometimes I'd say yes to $499.99, and sometimes I'd say no to $500. I guess the philosophers would call that free will.
DecorationOnly ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:15:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If youโve had a run of people lying to you, youโre pretty primed to be skeptical of the offer or conversely youโve had nothing but people telling you the truth, you are more apt to believe it.
If the person offering it looks skeevy vs well dressed.
Maybe a certain bird lands nearby and you take it as a โbad omenโ because you were raised superstitious.
Human decision making is very rarely a straight forward, binary event. Itโs affected by past life experiences combined with current situation variables. The current situation variables can be constantly evolving as well, and they can have complicated interaction with each other.
If I offered you your favorite pizza for free, youโd most certainly say yes, right? What if I winked while saying free? What if I put air quotes around the word pizza? Youโd say more likely than not (justifiably) say no. Itโs creepy as fuck and there is no way youโd trust me.
Now, what if your best friend winked while saying free or put air quotes around pizza? Your pre-existing relationship and trust in your friend, youโd probably think heโs just messing around.
armrha ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:30:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're basically just adding a ton of shit to the problem and then taking the new problem you've developed and claiming it to be the real problem. Very strange.
Assume you can have absolute trust in the agreement going through, and there's no extenuating circumstances, and no particular dire need for the person to get some amount of money right away, and the problem still remains.
Start at a number you would definitely say yes to, and keep moving down one cent at a time, and presumably sometime before a number you would definitely say no to is the one cent barrier.
karnoculars ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:55:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand this lol. Everyone is adding weird variables to the equation for no reason other than to make the problem more complex.
DecorationOnly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:54:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are setting up a hypothetical world. I merely said a real life scenario, itโs not a simple binary issue, but one where youโd have to look at probabilities.
Hypothetical worlds, you can assume lots of things so that you can come to a definitive answer. However, the real world doesnโt work that way.
ReaLyreJ ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:49:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Look, you either takemoney and lose a finger. Or you get no moeny, and keep your hands.
YOu dont get to both. THey are literally mutually exclusive. No matter how many billions of variables there are, there is an amount of money somewhere where you'll lop off a finger, and lower than that you won't.
DecorationOnly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:29:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Who said anything about both? I merely said itโs not a line but a gradient band of probabilities of the answer.
The limit where you answer changes will vary on a wide range of values, dependent on the outcomes of many variables, which can change moment to moment. To think there is a single point is ignoring the vast complexities of the human mind.
ReaLyreJ ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:45:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
yes/no questons do not have a gradient. There is yes. or no. It doesn't matter how complex people are. Because you can not choose both yes take my finger and no do not take my finger.
DecorationOnly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:52:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You didnโt bother reading the whole post, did you?
ReaLyreJ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:56:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I did. You just dont seem to understand what mutually exclusive means. For x you will not cut your finger off but for Y you will. That means somewhere between X and Y, there is a single value you will say yes to. That value might change moment to moment.
But at no point are there multiple values, unless youre talking about multiple fingers. Inwhich case there's still no gradient. It's just multiple values for different fingers.
What aren;t you getting about this?
DecorationOnly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:12:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
At what point did I say there were multiple values? Do you not know what probability is?
ReaLyreJ ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:27:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You imply multiple values with phrases like gradient. The fact that you're arguing against the idea there is a single point where you will give up a finger for money means you are arguing for the other.
DecorationOnly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:40:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol. I imply nothing of the sort.
Everyone else in this entire conversation has had zero issues with the concept. Itโs just you.
But sure, everyone else is wrong, definitely canโt be you.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:22:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ReaLyreJ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:50:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We can not define where the single point is, but seeing as it is literally impossible to keep and lose the same finger, there is no gradient where they like belt sender your finger off from the start.
You either take the cash at a certain point. Or you do not take it. Yes or no. That means that at value X, you have decided your finger is worth less than the cash and you take it.the value of X doesn;t matter, what matters is accounting for all variables, X will always have just a singular value at any one static point in time.
carbonatedfuck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:04:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If someone told you to cut off your finger for one cent and you said no, and then that person kept raising the "reward" with one cent till you said yes, would that not mean that there is a one cent difference?
DecorationOnly ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:23:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Except itโs a band of probability. What at one moment you say yes, another moment youโd say no. Itโs not an overly simplistic binary event where you switch from yes to no every time.
The only time thatโs possible is if you are ignoring how insanely complex human decision making actually is.
In a hypothetical world where you ignore all variables, this is how it would work. In a more realistic sense, youโd see a graduated band of probabilities.
GazelleDontGiveADama ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:44:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're adding disturbance variables into a situation for which they simply could not produce a response within the accounted for scenario. The paradox is not time dependent -- we do not introduce a number that results in a no and then proceed to increase it until a yes is produced. Instead, think of it as a repeating loop in which one party exists outside of the loop and one party exists entirely in the loop. All variables that would affect their decisions, therefore, are the exact same in each iteration. In doing so, we isolate the stimulus that produces the response of yes or no. At some point in the iteration, the response would change from no to yes with the responding party having no knowledge that any other offer had ever been made or that they previously had said no. This iteration is the "one cent difference."
DecorationOnly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:57:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs theory vs reality. In theory, you assume variables so that you can come to a single line where the answer changes. In reality, you canโt assume those variables, so youโre looking more at a probability gradient than a single point.
armrha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's still a yes or a no at some particular cent value, though. This doesn't change anything about the paradox.
KawiNinjaZX ยท 153 points ยท Posted at 19:09:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... " Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?" Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price
Winston S. Churchill
Anonimase ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 03:39:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow, with all the times his name is mentioned, I couldn't believe it was him!
Garconiere ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 09:33:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The S stands for โfucking badassโ.
queenofthera ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:35:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always think he sounds like a bit of an arsehole personally. Witty, but still an arse.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:01:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does this interaction actually took place?
KawiNinjaZX ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:59:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No idea I originally heard about it on a radio show.
gusmeowmeow ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 20:03:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
suck a dick for $1,000,000 - smart and secure with sexuality
suck a dick for $999,999 - gay
HexaBlast ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:11:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well if you say no homo then it isn't gay, but you'd have to pay the $999,999
[deleted] ยท 62 points ยท Posted at 16:57:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Another side note to this is the value of things based on simple supply and demand.
The water bottle being the perfect case. How much is a bottle of water worth?
If you are at the store it's probably around .50 cents.
If you are in the desert and a store is selling them, it could be five or ten dollars. But, that is conditional: Are you thirsty? How long until the next water bottle can be found?
If you are in a desert and you have two bottles of water one for you and one for one of the other two people with you, how much is it worth?
Well, it depends on how much money they have. Right? Nope, it depends on how much money both of them have. If person A is a millionaire and person B has ten dollars the bottle is worth eleven dollars.
What if the two people with you are Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos? Further, what if you must have the water to survive?
The bottle is worth billions.
Paladia ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 21:31:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No one who was into business would sell it for $11 to the millionaire as they know he would pay more for it. It's not like the millionaire is going to say "Nope, I'd rather die of thirst than pay $12 for it!". The demand is too great and the supply too limited to not make it a sellers market.
ihatepoodles69 ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 23:02:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bingo.
Naggins ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:26:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That has absolutely nothing to do with Sorties' paradox.
Laimbrane ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 20:00:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Humans are very good at mentally creating boundaries where no practical ones exist. A simple example is a black/white gradient. Look at the linked image - when researchers give images like this to people and ask them to draw boundary lines between black & gray and gray & white, people tend to draw them in about the same place.
We have to draw boundaries in order to turn continuous variables into discrete ones, but when we zoom in and examine those boundaries our decisions make much less sense. The Sorties paradox is basically the same thing, as is any sort of spectrum - what skin color defines a person's race, types of arms to regulate, etc. It's just how our brain works.
Merrilin ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:03:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like to think of this in terms of statistics.
Ask me if I would have my finger cut off for 1 cent. Record my answer, Yes or No, then go back in time to the exact same moment, and ask in the exact same way if I would have my finger cut off for 2 cents. Do this billions of times until you get to whatever your highest payment would be, say 4 billion dollars, and then plot the 'Yes's and 'No's. There would be a first Yes somewhere (assuming I ever accepted the offer), but I'd bet there wouldn't be a hard cutoff anywhere, after which I would always say yes. Because, for instance, maybe I'd say no to $1,123,123,123.124 but yes to $1,123,123,123.123 because it's a nice number, or whatever other random psychological reason. Instead, maybe there'd be a value after which I would say Yes more and more often until we reach a value where I answer Yes almost every time. If you asked me in a different setting while I was in a different mood, or asked in a different way, maybe you'd get a different distribution.
This avoids the paradox by making the simplifying assumption that I am only asked once (asking more than once will probably change my answers, see the guy talking about "framing") and that my answer depends on my whims at the moment, so it will only be the same on average.
SymphonyInPeril ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 16:21:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yup this one kinda hurt the noggin. Now you got me thinking about just how much Iโd cut my finger off for..
slowhand88 ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 18:14:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I got fifteen bucks and roughly half a box of Mentos, you in?
They're the Strawberry Mentos if that helps.
BanMeBabyOneMoreTime ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:13:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I won't accept anything less than a Klondike bar.
theonepoofwonder ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 09:06:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would you accept 99/100's of a Klondike bar?
Bioniclegenius ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:40:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Personally, I feel this is a bad example. This is permanent disfigurement, and I value my physical integrity a lot more than money. I can just live a little harder and earn the money over time and keep my finger instead. I may never be as rich, but at least I'd still have all my fingers.
Then again, my fingers are really important to my life, as a musician, a programmer, and a gamer.
Also, if the difference between the lowest value you'd say yes to and the highest value you'd say no to is one cent, then you are essentially saying your finger is worth precisely that one cent. To me, that doesn't really work.
All in all, I just personally think it's a bad example. I'd say how much it'd take for you to have sex with somebody you're not attracted to - gay sex, straight sex if you're gay, whatever you want - might be a better example, because since that doesn't have permanent results, you're less likely to run into extreme cases where a person just doesn't have any level they'd say yes to.
keitarno ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:55:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are not saying your finger is worth one cent. You are saying your finger is worth one cent more
Bioniclegenius ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:12:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But if the difference between me selling my finger and NOT selling my finger is one cent, than that one cent is the value of my finger, because without that one cent, I wouldn't sell my finger.
keitarno ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:21:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No it's not. Let's say you would sell it for 100 USD but not 99.99 USD. Then your finger is worth 100 USD the difference being one cent. The value of a car is not the listed price subtracted from what I would want to pay for it.
3holes2tits1fork ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:55:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How much would my medical bills, a prosthetic, and enough money to comfortably live an upper middle class lifestyle till I'm 100 be? That much exactly, not a penny less.
keitarno ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:54:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Let's just say that would be USD 2.100.000. But you wouldn't do it for USD 2.099.999?
3holes2tits1fork ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:17:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If that penny makes the difference, then no.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:45:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I heard it put like this, "I can't tell you when day ends and night begins. But I know when it's midnight."
JagroCrag ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:58:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So my thought is like this.
A number of folks sort of mentioned this but I think the point is that people don't think in a quantitative sense at the 1 cent level. 1 cent to me is a tootsie roll and no quantity of tootsie rolls will convince me to sell you my finger. Point being, and like others have said, this decision is one that is not only time dependent relative to my position in life but likely to be swayed by a range surrounding items I value my finger at. If I'm looking to get college tuition off of my finger I'll take a slew of values that will differ by tens of thousands and not by cents. The only way there is an exact cent is if I already know that figure going in, in which case it isn t much of a paradox.
I saw one argument that said something to the end that it's better stated in a physical problem with grain of sand versus heap of sand and I think that amounts to a semantic difference. If it doesn't then heap would need to be a well defined number of grains of sand. Otherwise you're dealing with a "one man's trash, another man's treasure" scenario.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:23:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Five million. I settle at five million. 4,999,999.99 wont cut it.
Battkitty2398 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:28:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was just thinking about that the other day (I've never seen it before, I just kinda thought of it). If you're making something, say cookies, there's a point where 1 single piece of sugar makes or breaks the recipe. Idk it's just weird to me.
iTut ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:51:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always liked the example: if you took a picture of a frog every second of its entire life, somewhere in that stack of pictures is a photo of a tadpole immediately followed by a photo of a frog, but it's difficult to pinpoint the exact spot that this occurs.
pokexchespin ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:37:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโve thought about things like this a lot, but not with that exact concept. Like if the local McDonaldโs moved a foot away, it wouldnโt matter, but if it moved 20 miles away, it would, and at what point would it for sure be too far? And if it moved another foot, would that matter? Also with closing time. Going an extra minute is fine, not so much another 2 hours
tylerthehun ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:44:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This sounds a lot like a variant of the heap problem.
Take a handful of sand, and pile it up into a little heap. Now take one grain of sand out of the heap and set it aside. The heap is still a heap, but a single grain is not a heap. Do it again and you still have a heap, but two grains is not a heap either. Keep doing that until the first heap is gone, and at some point you will have formed a second, different heap, but when did the second heap become a heap? When did the first heap stop being a heap?
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:44:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If humans were robots, yes. I've seen people say yes to a price for a thing I was selling them, change their mind, not accept my lowered offer, then come back a week later offering more when the thing was gone.
Their 'price' wasn't one number, but a Heisenberg cloud of probabilities which a bad meal or a sudden phone call can knock them out of.
BuntRuntCunt ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 16:54:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree with this. The amount will change based on mood, will change based on the method of finger removal, will change based on the amount initially offered, etc. There isn't a single price in general. The amount would be worked out like a negotiation, it doesn't matter exactly the amount that the finger is worth to the person, just the amount they can actually get paid for it and the amount the finger remover is willing to pay. The concept of the 1 cent barrier between yes and no doesn't exist, and also isn't relevant in practical application of the problem.
YoshiAndHisRightFoot ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:19:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's valid at any given instant, though. With time as a factor, it changes so fast we simply can't measure or even identify all of the variables before enough of them change and alter the value.
GMaimneds ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:09:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But, all else being equal, there is a cutoff (no pun intended).
Changing the method or your mood, etc. changes the circumstances of the deal. In that single moment, there are a range of values you would say yes to, and a range of values you would say no to. Where do they meet? It has to be somewhere...but where?
armrha ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 20:27:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It must be valid. There is fundamentally a point where it is too little money, and then a point where it is sufficient money. That is just how money works. I don't get all these people attacking the thought experiment.
Like, the thing is if 1 billion dollars is enough, and then you are offered 1 cent less than 1 billion dollars, that's also enough. How far down could they go? Eventually you would say no, but you'd probably be agreeing for a long time. You can only answer yes or no.
There is absolutely a one cent barrier at some point, where you feel like this is no longer worth it.
I think people criticizing it just don't like the fact that it's confusing them...
3holes2tits1fork ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:47:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's too many variables to ever know the exact penny amount you'd take and it probably changes every instance.
It would be effected by time, anchoring of price, and even a relative idea of what mood I'm in or want in life at that moment. Saying no to a lot of +1 penny increases would get old fast, and would probably lead to an outright no since it would take too long to get to the numbers I want. The exact number would be subject to the ideas in chaos theory and could not be known, and always changing.
That said, there is an exact penny amount I'd take, but I don't know exactly what it would come out to be and would need to be shown the amount offered would cover what I want. What is that amount? Enough to buy me drugs to cut off the pain, get a proesthetic to replace it, and set me up for life so I can live comfortably and not have to work until I'm old and dead. Show me the exact amount to pull that off, and I will say yes and not for a penny less. Anything I couldn't be shown would require a buffer space above what research I could do to guess. If I can't research, I'd need to be offered so much I wouldn't even need to consider if I can afford the life I want. Or else it is a no. The exact amount I could be swayed to would be subject to inscrutable variables in the moment.
Also, the concept isn't too mindblowing when you realize the practice is abused already in marketing when buying products. The exact penny a purchasing decision changes is usually when the furthest end number moves up. 8.00 will get less sales than 7.99, but 7.99 will see no discernable difference from 7.98. This would work all the way up in a statistical sense. So if I was offered 9,999,999.99, I'd be more likely to say yes when that number hits a nice even 10,000,000.00. Increments that fully move up in the lowest amount a person sees value in will also see changes. So if I think of change less than a quarter as worthless, 24 cents may not see a difference, but 25 cents might.
ClosetWeeb3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:49:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The problem with this is that it completely removes things like the person's mood at any given moment and current life situation/circumstance. Also...why does the difference have to be one cent less? Why can't it be a large gap of a grey area whose answer isn't determined by a definite yes or no from the person but instead external circumstances like, again, the person's living situation at the moment? Like 500 bucks would be a definite no, but 10,000 would be definite yes ( numbers for simplicity). The yes or no happening in the range in between could be effected by external or temporary factors rather than a direct assessment of worth (is X money worth Y consequence?). It doesn't have to be a literal one cent difference. At least I really don't see it needing to be.
EquinsuOchaACE ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:53:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Haha I play this "game" with my gf all the time. I'll say something like, "For how much would you eat this fly?" She'll say, "$5,000", to which I'll reply, "so you wouldn't do it for $4,900"? And the game begins!
Forikorder ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:14:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i would, im giving up my finger and the guy is trying to save a penny?
this isnt a negotiation, i named my price either take it or leave it
Sometimes_Sopranos ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:07:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean after a bunch of counter offers I'd stop. This isn't really that mind bending
armrha ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:32:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a really good one, but it's amazing how many people are like, arguing about it being 'false'. This is a very well established thought experiment and no matter what shit these armchair philosophers want to randomly add into it (accusing it of being "probability"? what? totally irrelevant) is going to change that.
Mqueserasera ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:16:50 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So? If I don't have a phisolophy degree then I don't get to think and argue a little about it? You can't convince people by saying "I'm a pro, just listen to me", in a debate you convince people by argument and counter-arguement. Stop gatekeeping everything ffs.
pahein-kae ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:53:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think the difference would ever be one cent. The number of dollars I would need to allow a stranger to cut off my finger differs by at least a factor of 10,000 from the point where I would give any sort of care to the numbers following the decimal point.
But that's like, the psychology of money.
glorifiedpenguin ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:35:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But thatโs the point.
Somewhere between that factor of 10,000 is a point where you would say โnoโ and one penny taken away at a time will eventually lead you to that point.
Even in the terms you are speaking, you have to draw a clear line where you will not accept even a penny less.
Example:
Me: Would you cut your finger off for $10,000?
You: no.
Me: how about, $100,000?
You: ok.
Me: how about $99,999.99?
You: yes itโs only a penny
Me: okay then how about 99,999.98?
You: yes
Etc.
If we keep taking away a penny, we will get back to the original $10,000 which you said no to, so obviously there is a definite point in which you will have an absolute minimum you will take, not even a penny less, because at that point it will no longer be worth it to you.
Soul-Burn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:29:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The example I know of the Sorites paradox is what is considered a heap.
Take a few grains of rice. Is that a heap? No. Take a truck full of rice and unload it. Is this a heap? Most people will say yes.
At some point, one grain of rice is the difference between a number of grains of rice being a heap and not being a heap.
In the real world, if this question controls some mechanics, hysteresis is usually used to decide whether or not to perform one action or the other, where you need a larger difference around that border in order to trigger the event.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:37:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
90% of my student loans is the lowest Iโll accept. One cent lower just makes it meh.
Bluestagg360 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:47:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It depends on how I'm feeling at that particular time.
meyersjs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:05:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly Iโve thought about this. Itโs probably not one value that where it flips. Iโd bet thereโs multiple value where you switch. Like you wouldnโt accept 1110034$ for someone to cut off your finger, but you would accept 1110033$ for someone to cut of your finger. When you are right around the value where cost-benefit analysis comes back neutral, it probably just depends on small little random things, like how the number sounds.
Towerss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:07:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would stop at a number that sounds bad. 1 billion, sure. 10 million? Yeah. 999,999? No way. I can get there myself somehow
BanMeBabyOneMoreTime ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have Tourette's, so I'd only take the offer if you took the opposite finger as well.
moogly2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:18:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This quandary stirred my mind a while ago, but I was unable to find the concept expressed philosophically, or any other way. Thanks for leading me out of the cave on this mattter.
erobbdigi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
reminds me of fucking eBay
BrokenStar412 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:41:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I used to mess with my college roommate by asking things like this, but never knew the name for it. Thank you so much!
Chicaben ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:42:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would you sleep with me for ten million dollars? Yes, of course
Would you sleep with me for a penny? What kind of girl do you think I am?
That's already been established, we are merely haggling over price.
farm_ecology ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:54:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The problem is that it's not as simple as an amount you would say yes or no to. There are various values that you might say yes or no to.
iagox86 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:18:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"what kind of woman do you think I am?" "I think we've already established that, now we're just haggling on price"
iagox86 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:20:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would you let a mad scientist cut off your hand for a flying car? https://youtu.be/BXYjqLLQ5KA
Paladia ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:23:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not necessarily true. You are making the assumption that the number itself is irrelevant and only the monetary value holds relevance. If that was true, then shops wouldn't try to sell things for 9.99 but just sell it for 10 instead. However, we perceive some numbers as more or less than they are.
You ask the person about 1 cent and he said no but he said yes when you asked him about four billions. If you asked him about $100 000 he might have said yes but he might also have said no to $109 999 if you had asked him that instead. Despite the later value being higher. It all depends on what he perceives as more valuable.
TuckersMyDog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:03:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thinking to myself I would say there is a hard number (let's say a million) I want, and then another number that I will exclaim "fuck you" and walk away.
Maybe as soon at it goes under 500k for example.
stesha83 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:17:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd do it for a cent. Where is your god now
Nate_K789 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:48:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lowest I'd take is 500% of the hospital bill, on top of the hospital bill and I get to pick which finger. 499.99% and it's no deal
CallumPenguin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:30:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ยฃ120000000 enough to have it invested in an account and have a steady income I've ยฃ75000 every year
leaf_26 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:42:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that's not really a paradox
CasaTank ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:06:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I used to do this on the reg when asking for how many more minutes I could stay up before bed
Nerdn1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:14:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Human brains just don't work that way, however. Your minimum price will change depending on everything said before coming to a figure. You can be convinced to go lower than what you think is your bottom dollar and you'll try to aim high.
Money works one way, human psychology and subjective value work another.
RoboticAnatomy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:20:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a really good example. But my favourite version is if you have a pile of sand consisting of one million individual grains of sand. You take one grain out of the pile and set it aside, you wouldn't refer to that single grain as a "pile", but the 999,999 remaining grains would still be a pile. If you kept moving one grain over at a time, at what point does the first pile stop being considered a "pile" and at what point does the second pile BECOME a "pile"? Are you going to tell me 15,645 grains of sand is a pile, but 15,644 grains isn't a pile?
Duki- ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:38:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think about this a lot. Never knew it was an actual thing.
sand_eater ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:45:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That seems like it would only work for the incredibly indecisive...
Spartacus3321 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:54:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Another one I heard ( not sure if anyone has said this yet )
If you have a pile of pile of salt and you take away one grain, you still have a pile, but at what point is it no longer a pile?
salbris ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:57:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unfortunately like everything philosophical reality makes this complicated. I'm not so certain there is a practical "limit" it's more about psychology. Say you're feeling a little more confident that day maybe you choose a lower number? Say you go through this exercise and you pick 10 million now you realize that 1 cent less doesn't matter but imagine someone kept asking for smaller and smaller numbers eventually you would stop but that still probably wouldn't be your number. You're prior knowledge that 10 million is acceptable would change your opinion of lower numbers. You might not consider passing 9 million or even 9.9 million given your prior knowledge but if we reset the experiment we might find that you are satisfied with 5 million if we first suggest that.
TallerWindow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:11:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dunno if anyone else has mentioned this, they probably have, but to me it doesn't seem like there's much of a paradox here. Every dollar amount just has a probability of saying yes associated with it. So 1 cent has a probability of essentially 0 and $4 billion has a probability of essentially 1, and this probability just decreases as the amount offered increases. Therefore there's no "hard break" between saying yes and no, the probability doesn't flip from 1 to 0 at some difference of just one cent, which is what the "paradox" seems to be claiming.
Cyberholmes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:13:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sorites*
rodneyabcd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:38:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck.
I feel really bad about all the replies saying "oh wow! I never knew there was a name for this."
Cyberholmes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:53:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Eh, it's all good. It's an odd name.
jcampbe4 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:18:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's seems to me that's more about how everything is realtive. There are days I would only accept millions, and days I'd accept significantly less. I wouldn't say there is a firm price on my finger because of that.
Master_Salen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:23:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That is what I believe every time I haggle over buying an item. Sadly for me, Iโve found the evidence sorely lacking.
But seriously, the number varies widely based on the strategy employed by the asker. If you decrease the asking amount by a cent, youโll find that a person will likely stop at a price thatโs higher than if you decreased the amount by a dollar each time. You initial ask can also heavily influence the final number that is settled on as well.
ChannelCat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:28:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the reason why this feels so strange is because all other factors are removed. There probably is an exact point at which you no longer will accept an offer, but as you approach that point your confidence in the decision will lower, making it more difficult to choose and accept. When you consider that factor, the situation seems more human and realistic, imo.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:30:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's easy. The mind is logarithmic. It doesn't think in exact amounts but in ratios and such. It's not that one penny makes a difference, but that an amount is either large enough or it isn't. There is actualkynprobably huge overlap between what a person will and will not accept depending on which angle you are coming from.
Tech_Philosophy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:33:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not convinced of this. I think the 4 billion dollar offer is accepted because it just blows away what you think you can be offered. You can't recreate the effect with some intermediate number by constantly trying to lower it one cent.
This is partially why economics is not a natural science - human psychology plays too large a role. Well, that and the fact that if you undermine any of the fundamental assumption of economics (such as a concept of limited supply) the phenomenon itself ceases it exist - another difference from the natural sciences.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:37:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is exactly how I argue against arbitrary number selection. Never knew the name. Thanks redditor!
bmwatson132 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:52:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I understand the concept at play, but I would add that the difference in the first two sums are not really comparable.
A cent is money, money is what you take to the grocery store; 4 billions dollars is an entire life.
If the sum offered is essentially enough to never even consider working again then I would say that that's worth it, maybe even somewhat less.
What I'm saying is that dollars and cents are irrelevant , it's what kind of value you're willing to accept for parting with an appendage. That's a more complex, and I would say more accurate way to appraise the offer.
ambivalentasfuck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:59:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've never heard it described with money. I've always heard this described with the 'heap' analogy using grains of rice or sand.
filipinofishboy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:41:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
people will sell their kidney's just for the latest iphone
Chlorinated_beverage ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:59:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always think about this. I shivered when I read this because I finally have something to justify and categorize my crazy thoughts.
GregTheTraceur ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:07:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fuzzy logic would like to have a word with you.
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:16:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow this is a great one, I'm going to ponder this for a while.
Al_Maleech_Abaz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:29:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You could argue that they donโt exist objectively because the numbers mentioned previously would highly influence what number you would accept. For example if someone offered you 10 million right off the bat, you might say yes. But if someone offered a billion at first and then changed it to 10 million you would most likely decline. And on the other end of the spectrum if someone offered 5 dollars for your finger but then jumped up to 10 million dollars youโd most likely jump at the offer.
phpdevster ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:43:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is literally not a single amount of money I would be willing to lose a finger over. Everything I want money for, benefits greatly from having all 10 fingers.
Maybe, just MAYBE you could convince me to lose a toe for about $500,000,000,000 dollars. I would then spend a fuckload of that getting a perfect replacement toe re-attached.
JargonR3D ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:50:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Tbh i wouldn't sell my finger for any amount, but i'll play along.
esa0705 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:56:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Man, Iโve thought of this so much. I didnโt know there was a name for it.
FnkyTown ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:51:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My 5 year old disagrees with you.
CozySlum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:54:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would say no to anything $100K below my "line". My line is $500K. Even at $400K I could really go either way so I could comfortably say no to $399.99K. It's dangerous to think in absolutes so I avoid saying min or max.
jpizzle1232 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:56:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This also applies to arguments about abortion. People agree that an abortion 1 second before birth is murdered. While one second after conception isn't. At what point does it cross the line from murder to just terminating a group of cells.
wordsworths_bitch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:09:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i bet you were a hoot in differential calculus.
bunker_man ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:39:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No its not. Because you aren't a machine. Your answer will flip flop more the more ambiguous the amount is.
CommandoDude ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:13:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The problem with this paradox is that it assumes rational actors.
Numerous psychological studies show that humans react differently under pressure and authority. Theoretically, you could always accept a counter offer "1 cent lower" until you couldn't, but such a negotiation would play havoc with a person's emotional state. They might reject the entire thing out of spite and declare they would need more money, or not go through with it at all. Even bargaining could influence a person's decision. They might also chicken out at the last minute. Any number of emotional outbursts could occur.
There is no way, in my opinion, to determine the exact cent price of a finger, because the act of attempting to find that price will paradoxically increase the uncertainty of said price.
LordMarcel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:54:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In sports, there's a similar situation. In a world-record race, there are always at least some places you could go faster, or get better technology which allows you to go faster. However, you obviously can't do something like run the 100-meter sprint in 1 second. Somewhere there is the fastest ever possible time, but we don't and can't know what it is.
CeterumCenseo85 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:28:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd say because they are heavily context-dependent. In this moment you might say yes to x โฌ, but the next moment you might turn out the offer for that amount....because it's a very emotional thing to consider and there is no exact threshold that will withstand emotional swings in your decision.
suffer-cait ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:42:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think if you were to talk it out you would find the number. You'd keep going lower till you hit that point of hesitation. Then you work your way up until you're no longer hesitant again. And then you work your way down again. Eventually you'd find your minimum price. Though, change in circumstances could always make you reconsider
torontosparky ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:50:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Anybody who has everyday bargained for anything in their life knows that the lowest price they started off settling for is different than the one the ended off with. That number is not exactly one cent, and it is not static at all.
rodneyabcd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:13:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is literally impossible to be anything other than one cent and the number not being static has nothing to do with anything.
Regardless of what factors are influencing the situation there is always a one cent difference between the lowest offer you'd accept and the highest number you'd decline.
torontosparky ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:04:25 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What I meant is that that one cent point only appears after a decision is made. Up until that point is a nebulous possibility affected by a constantly changing environment. The once cent point could be different if the decision was made a moment before or a moment after.
torontosparky ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:55:20 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What I meant is that that one cent point only appears after a decision is made. Until that time it does not exist, or is at least a constantly changing point based on countless changing variables... That one cent point could be quite different had the decision been made a moment before or a moment after.
helm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:37:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nope, the values will be in a constant flux.
SWA_90 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:40:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same(?) concept, as a brain teaser one of my teachers asked the class: if there was a heap of sand and we removed one grain of sand at a time, at what point does it stop being a heap of sand?
This might be slightly different though, because I'm not aware of any definable points as to when a bunch of grains of sand becomes a heap (by definition.)
rodneyabcd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:42:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not only is it not different, but the first line in the Wikipedia article is "also known as the paradox of the heap.".
SWA_90 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:18:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
TIL. Thanks. Next time will make an effort to Google before getting all philosophical.
meta4_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:50:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same concept as the trolley problem actually.
rodneyabcd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:20:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In what way?
meta4_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:15:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Let's take the essence of the classic trolley problem.
Would you kill one to save five?
If you say no, okay, sure.
Would you kill one to save six?
No?
Seven? Eight?
No?
One thousand?
Yes? Okay. What about 999?
The numbers objectively exists, the turning point.
Pick the lowest number you can think of accepting, and tell me honestly that you'd change your mind for one person less.
I feel like this is the same concept. Please do correct me if I'm missing something though!
rodneyabcd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:21:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The trolley problem is less about how many lives you'd save and more about the ethics of action vs inaction, although the comparison is valid.
meta4_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:45:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the similarity here says less about the nature of the trolley problem than it does about the aggregation approach in most consequentialist theories. Definitely you're right to say that the Problem is centred on action vs in action. But the fact that we can see such a strong parallel is, to me, strong testament to the fact that consequentialist theories revolve around mathematics, on some level.
cronin98 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:27:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
lol And all I can think is "What's the highest this crazy mother fucker will pay?" That's my minimum.
crankyjerkass ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:39:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It might take some time, but between my current debt and looking at tax regulations regarding prize money and income brackets, I could give you that figure to the cent.
Portarossa ยท 3220 points ยท Posted at 15:00:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The idea of moral luck messes with my head a bit.
Take a situation in which you have two neighbours, A and B. A and B both drink the exact same amount of alcohol at a bar, make the exact same decision to drive home, get into the exact same make and model of car, and drive down the exact same road to their houses, which are next door to each other. The only difference is that B leaves two minutes later than A. Just by chance, there happens to be a child crossing the street at the exact second that B is driving his car; B can't swerve fast enough thanks to the alcohol in his system, and the child is struck and killed. A and B would have been in the same situation, if they'd decided to leave at different times -- they both decided to drive drunk, and neither intended any harm.
From an ethical perspective, who's worse? On the one hand, B killed a child; A doesn't have that blood on his hands. On the other, B and A both made exactly the same decisions, and it seems ridiculous to suggest that the only thing that determines whether someone is a 'good' or 'bad' person (or in this case, I think it's safe to say, a 'bad' or a 'worse' person) is something that is entirely out of their hands.
EDIT: A lot of people are focusing on the drunk driver issue, so let's widen the net a bit:
EDIT 2: The majority of people in the comments are here to tell me how obvious this is, and then are about a 50-50 split on whether one driver is worse (obviously) or whether they're equally bad (obviously). Welcome to moral philosophy, guys.
clutchheimer ยท 912 points ยท Posted at 17:02:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is basically the argument for process based analysis over results based. Does it actually matter who is ethically worse?
One person had outcomes that were potentially worse for the world, but ethically, I would argue they are no different.
Now lets spin your point a little bit. What if that child that A kills would grow up to be a political mass murderer. Now who is worse?
thegreenalien12 ยท 441 points ยท Posted at 17:33:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, killing Hitler does not necessarily make you a good person.
FinnSolomon ยท 228 points ยท Posted at 17:48:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, cos that would make Hitler a good person.
1doctor ยท 191 points ยท Posted at 20:00:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Think of how many Hitlers that Hitler possibly killed!
DeedTheInky ยท 129 points ยท Posted at 20:29:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hitler's KDR vs. Hitler is currently 1:1 AFAIK.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 08:21:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn, this hitler guy is shooting with 100% accuracy, all headshots. He sounds virtually unstoppable!
Thatguysstories ยท 110 points ยท Posted at 21:24:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well we do know that Hitler killed Hitler.
So he's got that going for him.
However, he did kill the guy who killed Hitler.
So he has that going against him.
your_inner_monologue ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 01:01:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well he killed the guy who killed the guy who killed hitler so some might say hes a hero.
Thatguysstories ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 01:06:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but then he killed that guy, so some might say he is evil.
comradeda ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:01:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, he killed the guy who killed Hitler with consent, so that's OK.
Polite_Joke ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:14:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Holy shit.
robots914 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:44:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, that's true. If you go back in time and kill Hitler before he starts murdering innocent people, you have killed an innocent man. He would go on to commit the worst crime against humanity in living memory if left alive, but he hadn't done anything yet at the point when you killed him so you now have an innocent man's blood on your hands. However, if you have the knowledge that he will kill all those people and have the ability to prevent it at the cost of the life of a man who was innocent at the time, you would be partially responsible for their deaths if you failed to act. It's really just the trolley problem with the stranger on the bridge - let the trolley continue going and run over 10 million people, bearing only partial responsibility because you didn't act, or be fully, directly responsible for murdering a man but save the people on the tracks.
seeasea ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 21:25:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And to add to this, as I've been contemplating this (like the trolley problem). When is the point at which it's ok to kill Hitler?
After election? After kristallnacht? Night of long knives? Wansee conference? Would five minutes before be ok?
Also, of you were to accept killing baby Hitler as moral, would it be ok to kill his pregnant mother before? Or his grandmother?
What about Goebbels? Or which Nazi in the hierarchy does it stop becoming ok?
Recrewt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:08:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think this is not that complicated. The deciding factor is simply the knowledge about what your action truly causes (and if that would be "good" for humanity in the long run - whatever that means). If someone had the ability to aquire that knowledge, and the outcome would be good in the long run, in my opinion it doesn't matter if they kill Hitler 5 minutes before he became "bad" Hitler, at his birth, or even kill his mother if she would have given other possible baby-Hitlers the gift of life.
This is just a theoretical problem. If you don't have true knowledge - which is what we humans have to deal with - it's never moral to make decisions like this.
Feel free to tell me your opinion on this.
Discombobulated_Mess ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:56:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thereโs no point in the Nazi hierarchy that killing the Nazi becomes morally bad lol
cuajito42 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:05:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is another problem with killing Hitler and there being no WW2. The technologies that were developed may have never been developed otherwise.
robots914 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:55:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not to mention the people. There are probably countless people who would never have been born had it not been for ww2, and who knows what would change if they hadn't existed.
clutchheimer ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 17:37:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The same argument can be made that killing some random person does not necessarily make you a bad person. Was it an accident? Were they threatening someone? Even killing someone in exactly the situation as described doesn't make you a bad person, if Albert Schweitzer had done exactly what was written, does it invalidate all of the good he did?
All I am saying is that the problem is not as ethically simple as presented.
Eternity_Incarnate ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:39:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I read that as "Arnold Schwarzenegger," and was wondering what good he would have done if he had been the original terminator in real life.
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:21:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How dare thee disparage the Governator!
M_A_X_77 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:14:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here's another question. Would it be better to kill Hitler as a baby or ensure that Hitler's parents never met?
ItSmellsLikeYourMom ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:26:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
it's better not to do anything. people tend to always forget that they would create infinite possibilities by changing something in the past- big or small.
seeasea ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:28:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In many moral philosophies, it's always better to choose to the possibility of bad over the certainty of bad.
Id pick killing Hitler over any potential problem that cannot be predicted. There is a 100% of a Holocaust by doing nothing, and of the infinite probabilities, a less than 50% chance of one happening by killing him.
That said, id kill Hitler even if it only reduced the probability by 1%
evilution382 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:07:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd kill Hitler even if it increased the probability
Fuck that guy
Austin_RC246 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:20:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Depending on what point in history you kill Hitler, youโre either a hero or Hitler becomes the greatest leader Germany had and a Martyr.
ZombieBarney ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:33:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Makes me fun at parties, though.
IUsedToBeGlObAlOb23 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:56:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Neither. If your actions weren't motivated by a desire to end the actions of the boy, which they obviously can't be, then ethically they are no different, imo. However, obviously for the worlds sake A's action is a net positive.
clutchheimer ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:58:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree that they are ethically equivalent.
IUsedToBeGlObAlOb23 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:46:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Btw could u enlighten me on the difference between ethics and morals? I'm really interested in this thread but times when I would say "morally" people are saying "ethically".
2001SpaceOddish ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:45:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Morals are a standard or code of behaviour to determine right and wrong. Ethics is a county in southeast England.
EggbertTheIV ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:52:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But what fact makes it true that the child would grow up to be a mass murderer?
clutchheimer ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:02:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, an interesting point. This could break down into a determinism/multiverse debate really quickly. The whole thing is just a set of thought experiments.
EggbertTheIV ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:22:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I feel that itโs really hard to have one set of discussions without the other, which is what makes philosophy so great but also so miserable sometimes.
martixy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:58:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is an old anime(in name mostly) called Monster.
It explores that theme(along with so many other mature topics) in an amazing way.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:01:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Second person to mention it, I should check it out.
AustinJG ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:10:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh God, this reminds me of an anime called Monster.
DickPuppet ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:00:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What you are describing is the difference between consequentialist and deontological ethics.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:35:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you for giving me the philosophical words. I was thinking in terms of process analysis.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:41:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, it's not luck. It's chance. Chance isn't mysterious, it's just math. Morality lead to our decision to engage in behaviors, and the math that we'll face consequence is just that, math.
Bioniclegenius ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:43:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd say ethically, they're both equally bad. I view them both equally, so I'm not totally sure why this is supposed to be a paradox.
seeasea ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:31:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But the punishment is vastly different.
To the point that there is an article in read yesterday of a kid being charged for murder because while he was robbing someone his accomplice was shot by the police. He is considered, under the law, responsible for all resulting actions from his crime, even unintended, and even if he want involved.
3holes2tits1fork ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:57:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Intent is always relevant in law and ethics. Regardless, intending to drive drunk is a fairly serious crime.
clutchheimer ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:37:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True, but in this case both had the same intent and actions, but the consequences of the actions are different. This is what we are examining.
3holes2tits1fork ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:53:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, to clarify, I think 'luck' absolutely plays a factor in morals and shouldn't be an exception since it plays a factor in literally everything else. It's not fair, but everything in life is playing probabilities, and if you hit a kid while driving drunk, you knew that was a risk and lost.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:02:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, totally. This means you deserve your punishment, but does it mean the choice you made was ethically worse than if you had not killed anyone?
3holes2tits1fork ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:05:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
With your specific wording, at the moment of choosing, no it was not, but his action ethically led to a much worse outcome. He could have easily controlled for it, but chose not to, so his ethics must be held accountable. The kid didn't choose to get hit by the car either, so driver A is solely responsible. The other driver, while endangering those around him and making a gamble others may be forced to unwillingly participate in, did not lead to the same outcome. An absent consequence cannot be judged to the same extent a material one can.
Another aspect that is interesting to consider. Is he morally worse by hitting the child if he would have hit the kid sober anyway? Was the alcohol even what lead to the accident, and if not, is he any more innocent? And further, how much risk, such as getting into a car in the first place, can be morally justified? By choosing to drive you do choose to put those around you in danger they may not otherwise have been in. Usually that is for a society to collectively decide, and factors like the net benefit inform the decision (cars are quite useful), but that is one I do not really have an answer for.
bluesam3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:22:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or, alternatively, the argument for reasoning in terms of expected (in the probabilistic sense) outcomes, rather than actualised outcomes.
gamedemon24 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:53:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They're still equal, because the reality in which that child was a mass murderer never existed; it remained in the hypothetical (unless you're implying the multiverse theory, which would make this waaay more complicated). That child did nothing. And conversely, accidentally doing something that makes the world a better place (killing a mass murderer when they're young, for example), does not make you a better person, or less of a bad person. You never intended to do that good thing.
Glory2Hypnotoad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:13:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reminds me of one of my favorite SMBC comics
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-05-28
dialgalucario ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:45:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think of it this way: the ethical faults of a person in a situation is the product of the consequence and intent of the action. The consequence starts from 0 with no negative consequence and increases with the severity of the consequence. The intent starts at 1 as full intent and planning for the consequence, decreasing to 0 being the societal norm for reasonable effort to prevent the consequence.
As for the second question, both would have zero ethical fault since neither had previous knowledge. The societal expectation for preventing a consequence practically unforseeable is no effort. Therefore both people would have 0 intent and therefore have 0 ethical responsibility for the consequence.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:04:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is an interesting point of view. I need to consider it more.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 189 points ยท Posted at 17:52:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is why a lot of judicial systems are not results based. The US system is kind of unique in just how results based it is and how much the result of the action rather than the action itself weigh.
There was a controversy a while back mostly from English media that a Dutch court sentenced someone who was speeding and killed a child to a very mild sentence but basically that the child died had no relevance to the sentence; the sentence was purely for speeding and the child shouldn't even be on the road; if the child had died but the person wasn't speeding then there wouldn't even be a sentence.
Essentially the child dying is the only reason they found out that he was speeding though; if a child wasn't there he would've been out scot free most likely as no one would ever find out.
It's also why I believe that no justice system should differentiate between a crime itself and an attempt of that crime; murder and attempted murder should be treated the same.
Valiturus ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 00:06:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's why manslaughter is a crime. Speeding is not a felony, but you still get fined for increasing the risk to other drivers and pedestrians. If your speeding kills someone, you don't just get charged with speeding. Your negligence has increased the risk of someone getting killed. When someone does get killed because of your speeding, you're charged with manslaughter. (Criminal negligence causing death in legalese.)
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 66 points ยท Posted at 00:13:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's what they do in the US where the justice system seems to be highly results oriented.
Other places have less results oriented systems and don't punish you more or less based on things outside of your controlโthis is in line with the general philosophy that say Norway or Sweden have a preventive justice system where the purpose is to reduce the occurrence of crimes whereas the US has a retributive justice system where the purpose is to provide the satisfaction of retribution to the people.
sunburntredneck ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:39:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
On the one hand, morally speaking, I can't read any of these comments and come to the conclusion that America's system is better than Europe's, ethically speaking. It just isn't. Maybe it's the way everyone words it (because bashing America always gets upvotes), but I can't pick up on any emotional trigger words. Europe's system, from a neutral perspective, flat-out seems better for society, and definitely for the person who accidentally killed a child. Going based off mental intent makes so much more sense in trying to produce a law-abiding society.
On the other hand, if you kill a fucking kid, you should get your ass beat (figuratively). Like, if your actions are responsible for the death of a person, how is it justifiable to let you walk scot-free?
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 00:54:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well first off I don't think that the person you murder is a child is relevant in Dutch law at all and do you also think that someone who tosses a computer out of the window and there just happens to be someone down there should be punished for murder opposed to the person who does it with nothing down there getting off free? It's purely within the realm of chance.
Galivis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:09:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Absolutely. If your negligence hurts/kills someone who was not doing something wrong, then you deserved to get charged with more compared to someone who did the same action but with different results. At the end of the day, both the action and the results need to be considered.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 01:13:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well that's just an irrational system based on retribution that doesn't strategically stop things from happening and on top of that a complete lottery where pure luck decides what punishment people get.
Not in the slightest a fan.
Portarossa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:23:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
OK, try this one on for size. Say you're walking your dog in the park -- a big dog, Great Dane sized. He's a slobbery fellow, but he doesn't mean any harm to anyone. One day, his leash breaks and he bounds over to a group of small children, scaring the crap out of them -- not because he bites them, but he's so big and so fast that they're understandably terrified. You chase after him and manage to grab the leash in the last instant before he reaches the children. He, of course, just wants to play. You run over and apologise, and take your dog on your way.
Now, let's say that a week earlier, the same thing happened -- another Great Dane broke his leash and bounded over to a group of small children, but his owner wasn't quite as fast as you and the dog put one of the kids into hospital; for a while, it looked like she wasn't going to pull through at all. That little girl is now missing three fingers and is going to have a scarred face forever. That dog was put down as a danger to society.
Should the bitey dog have been put down? It was an accident that it got off the leash, but no one knows what caused it to snap. Who's to say he wouldn't bite another kid, with an even worse result next time?
Should your dog be put down? Technically, it's the exact same situation... except for the end result. If you hadn't been quite as fast -- if luck hadn't played a part -- who's to say that your dog wouldn't have killed that little girl?
If it's consistency you're looking for, it seems that your dog would have to be put down even though there were no negative consequences -- that gets rid of the 'pure luck' angle you're talking about. That said, I don't think many people would argue that it's a 'just' decision. Sometimes the actual consequences do need to be taken into account, and not just the worst case scenario version.
Nocturnalized ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 05:56:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That is a terrible example for the simple fact that dogs are not humans.
Dogs do not understand consequences and the court systems do not expect them to.
If, instead, you asked if the two owners should be punished the same way, the answer would be yes.
notbatmanyet ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 08:24:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consequences can be evidence. You have no way of knowing that the second dog would bite anyone, and innocent until proven guilty. But however the first dog obviously had violent intent.
ixtechau ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:55:01 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying that two people who both fired a shot against a police officer - one missed completely but the other hit him in the head and killed him instantly - should both be charged with murder? Or are you saying neither should be charged with anything? Same intent from both, remember.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:56:43 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm saying both should be charged with murder yes.
Or basically that murder and attempted murder should be the same crime and that the distinction should not matter.
ixtechau ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:20:57 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok that's fine, but here's another example:
I'm on my Vespa. Car pulls out from a parking lot without looking. I crash into it and die. Are you now saying that every car driver that has ever pulled out from a parking lot without looking - regardless of outcome - should all be done for manslaughter? If no, are you then saying the person that pulled out and killed me should get no punishment for ending my life?
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:28:14 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, just for a minor traffic violation of taking a turn without looking.
No, that person should get the same punishment for the traffic violation I described above. That it led to your death was outside of that person's control.
ixtechau ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:57:41 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
...but it wasn't, because my death was caused by negligence. It wasn't an accident. It was a direct consequence of someone's negligence. I think we both know that if your mother/father/daughter/son/wife/husband died because someone threw rocks off a bridge and one of them hit them in the head, you wouldn't be ok with the only punishment for that person being a ยฃ100 fine for antisocial behaviour.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 09:04:28 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And they are punished for the negligence; they are punished exactly as far as the actions were inside of their control; the negligence they can control but not the result of it.
Hardly, the reason why I live in a place with a legal system that isn't results-oriented is because people voted for it. Retribution plays a very small role in it and most people here don't agree with the concept altogether.
ixtechau ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:32:23 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So you would be ok with the person who killed your loved one only getting a ยฃ100 fee, having learned nothing about consequences?
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:49:04 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, that is the democratically voted law in the Netherlands? There is no crime of "vehicular homicide" here and people consider the US mentality that people who crash into other people and something bad happens being punished greater to be an incomprehensible mentality?
You get punished more if you deliberately try to run someone over with a car.
ixtechau ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:46:10 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just because the majority voted for a political structure that eventually established such a justice system, doesn't mean you would be ok with a ยฃ100 fine for someone killing your loved one.
You also seem blissfully unaware that by giving a ยฃ100 fine, the person who killed your loved one through negligence has not learned the meaning of consequence. They can go back to the bridge the next day and keep throwing rocks, as there is no consequence to doing so. They get fined, sure, but maybe they think it's worth ยฃ100 to throw rocks all day.
If you instead locked them up for manslaughter, they would learn that all actions in life have consequences, and throwing rocks off a bridge is probably not a great pastime once they get out of prison.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:50:13 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It implies the people by and large are okay with it.
It turns out not everyone is out for retribution. It's not "killing", no one killed anyone, an element of the crime of murder is intent to kill and that wasn't there.
Someone made a minor screwup and someone died as a consequence.
They've learnt exactly as much as the person who did the same thing when someone didn't die; whther someone dies or not is outside of their control.
No they would learn a blatant logical fallacy of results-oriented thinking.
ixtechau ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:07:01 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I never said murder. I said manslaughter. You don't need intent for manslaughter.
Not really a minor screwup for you, is the point. One of your loved ones died. I wouldn't call that minor.
It's not out of their control, as they knew the risk in throwing rocks off a bridge. It wasn't an accident that someone died, it was a likely scenario. And they still did it.
Ok, and they would still be unable to kill more people by throwing rocks off a bridge, since it's hard to do that when you're imprisoned. Society wins.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:13:07 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You don't need intent for involuntary manslaughter in the US but our justice system indeed works differently.
(Voluntary) manslaugher in US law still requires intent to kill but murder requires premeditation; the intent typically rises in the moment.
And that's results oriented thinking.
If you judge people based on the results of their actions when the results are outside of their control you create a lottery of a justice system.
Yeah, and the person who does the exact same action and controls for the exact same things and there doesn't happen to walk someone there gets a lighter punishment.
Both were equally irresponsible but one had worse luck and the one with worse luck gets punished more; that's a lottery of a justice system.
Except in your version the person who also throws rocks but no one dies evades punishment and will also just continue to do it and the next time will die because whether people are walking there is pure chance.
ixtechau ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:58:24 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know the definition of murder, thanks.
Again: it's not out of their control. It wasn't an accident. The decision to throw a rock off a bridge comes with risk and consequence. The person throwing the rock knows fully well that there is risk that the rock will hit someone walking below.
You seem to think that all "unlucky outcomes" are accidents. They aren't.
Well obviously, because no one got hurt. The consequence of throwing the rock was nothing, so nothing happens.
You are essentially saying that every time you change lanes you should get fined because there could have been a car in the adjacent lane so you could have crashed into them. Your decision is all that matters, not the outcome of that decision, remember?
Galivis ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 02:25:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is not pure luck. If you avoid the illegal action in the first place then you don't have to worry about it. Do you really believe if someone throws a heavy object out the window and it kills someone walking on the sidewalk below, there should be little to no punishment? It is either that, or you charge the person who did not hit anyone with attempted murder.
Now the America system does need to change to focus more on rehab than punishment, but at the same time there does need to be some sort of punishment to help act as a deterrent (though drastically scaled down from how it is currently used in the American system).
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 02:30:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And two people who do exactly the same thing get punished differently based on what essentially is a lottery.
The argument of "If you avoid the iliigal action..." can just as well be justified to give people of different races and sexes harsher punishments for the same crime with "well if you avoid the illegal action..."
The fundamental principle of a nation of laws that when people commit the same crime they receive the same punishment.
It should be exactly the same punishment someone receives when someone was not or was randomly standing there.
Throwing heavy objects out of the window should be a form of criminal negligence but the result of it should not pay into the magnitude of the crime.
But the point is that if you punish people differently for the sake action just because the outcome was different based on factors outside of their control that doesn't create a stronger deterrent for unfavourable outcomes because by definition the outcome is outside of their control.
juaneloy122 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:49:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Guys, this was a good read. thanks
ixtechau ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:51:04 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The point obviously being here that both were negligent, which they shouldn't have been in the first place. One did little damage, but the other changed the lives of a few dozen friends and family members of the deceased. There needs to be some consequence to that, since it wasn't an accident - it was negligent behaviour, borderline psychopathic since the person clearly lacked the ability to think about the potential consequence of throwing a computer out of a window. That person KNOWS there could be people below the window, and yet threw their computer out anyway.
If the person accidentally dropped their computer out a window then I agree that there should be no punishment. But if you throw a computer out a window knowing full well that people could get hurt, there needs to be a consequence to that gross negligence.
Imagine if someone killed your mother/father/wife/husband because they stood on a bridge throwing rocks at people 100 feet below. Would you be ok with that person only getting a ยฃ100 fine for being a twat on a bridge? No further consequence needed because that person was just "unlucky" (even though that person knew full well that one of the rocks could hit someone)?
Galivis ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:43:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The issue though is they did not commit the same crime. One performed negligence since they threw a heavy object out the window. The other killed someone due to the negligence.
Yes it does. The deterrent is you do not throw a heavy object out the window.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 02:54:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, and then what you crime you do or do not commit in this system is based on chance and factors outside of the criminal's control.
And it is completely ineffective deterrent-wise to give people a different punishment based on actions outside of their control since they can't control them.
The higher punishment when someone dies when they can't control whether someone will die or not can't possibly deter people from letting people die since by definition it is outside of their control.
Joccaren ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 03:00:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same crime. They threw a heavy object out the window. That was their action. Whether it resulted in death or not is pure chance and cannot be attributed to them any more than the death of a child in China can be attributed to me for owning a phone. Yes, their action increased the likelihood of it happening, but it happening is outside their control. Do you believe we should have a roulette wheel in the court room to decide how long someone is sentenced for? Because that is essentially what you are advocating; that random chance should impact sentencing for a personโs actions.
Nope, the deterrent is you donโt kill someone while throwing a heavy object out a window. Thatโs what gets you the harsh sentence. In fact, sometimes thatโs the only thing thatโll get you sentenced at all as some systems require a demonstration of harm in negligence cases before it can be pursued.
However, you never PLAN to kill someone when you throw a heavy object out the window. Its not murder. You think โThis is safe and Iโll be fineโ. So you throw it out the window because thatโs fine, its just luck as to whether what you do is really wrong or not.
Punishing the very act of throwing the heavy object out the window as if it had hit someone, even when it didnโt, would resolve this. It is the act of throwing it out that window that is being punished, not the results of a roulette wheel.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:32:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it should be in the middle; obviously it should be far lower than actual intent to kill someone with it but I think that "a reckless act which a reasonable person could foresee could lead to serious damage to another human being" should be punishable regardless of whether the damage happened and it should be punished the same if the damage happened.
This is why speeding is illegal whether or not an accident actually happened.
toastedzergling ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:22:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The issue with intent, rather than results based crimes, imho, is that it creates a situation where being ignorant and unaware is a safety net.
In other words, the more oblivious and "unintentional" you are, more you incentivize willful ignorance.
Nocturnalized ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 06:01:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But that isnโt how it works.
People are judged based on the standard of a โbonus pater familiasโ - a standard, reasonable person.
jesusonadinosaur ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 04:41:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I consider the US system clearly superior when it comes to the primary goal of justice, namely protecting the innocent.
Let's say we have two people fire a gun at another man during a conflict. Person A misses and hits the man in the leg and runs away, person B however is in the same situation but puts one in his head killing him.
Now their intent was no different. They are neither one morally superior. But if we punish person A the same as person B we've provided a peculiar incentive. Person A is logically better off shooting his victim again killing him (no witnesses) since he's getting the same punishment either way.
We set up our laws so that you can always help your self by stopping doing further harm. It's not for the sake of the offender, it's for the good of society that we positively incentivize doing no more damage.
Nocturnalized ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 06:02:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is true. This is also why any โthree strikesโ laws are pure nonsense.
WTables68 ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 00:07:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Having attempted murderโs punishment lower incentivizes someone, who is in the act, to stop the attempt before killing the person.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:11:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not attempted murder at all.
If you stop before killing the person it's something like aggrevated assault. An element of the crime of attempted murder is intent to kill and stopping before someone is dead makes it very hard for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone had intent to kill.
WTables68 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:45:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
we're talking about common law or U.S. law, right? If so, you are simply incorrect.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:50:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No why would we if we were talking about a child dying from speeding in the Netherlands?
WTables68 ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:53:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You mentioned "attempted murder", "aggrevated (sic) assault" both without any disclaimers like "loosely translated from Dutch". You also posted "beyond a reasonable doubt" an American term.
if we're limiting this philosophical discussion to Dutch law, here is a provision of Dutch law I found.
"An attempt to commit a serious offence shall be punishable if the intention of the offender has revealed itself by a commencement of the performance of the criminal act."
http://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/6533/2014%20seminars/Omsenie/WetboekvanStrafrecht_ENG_PV.pdf
What separates murder from attempted murder is the death. Both have the person with the intent to kill.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:00:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No these are just internationally recognized crimes that are in the law books of many countries.
Really because I'm pretty sure that's just an English term and used in almost all English jurisdictions and is just translated into Dutch as "onomstotelijk bewezen" which is used there.
Yes, so that's what I said?
WTables68 ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 02:02:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
stopping after displaying the intent to kill does not remove the intent to kill.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:04:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Of course it does; if you stop before someone is dead and in fact even try to give that person medical treatment it's very hard to make compelling you had intent to kill that person.
landsharkgun ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:05:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't get this.
When you are driving a car, you are responsible for paying attention and avoiding dangerous situations. Even if the child "shouldn't" have been in the road, the driver is responsible for attempting to avoid the child. The fact that the driver had no intention of killing someone lessens the crime, but he is still guilty of taking a life through negligence.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 00:08:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No actually if you're on a 80 KM/h road there's no reasonable way to avoid a child that just appears in the middle of the road. If you abide by all traffic regulations and pay attention you'll still run over it.
In fact I'd probably say that in this particular case the speeding had nothing to do with the death of the child and if the driver drove within the speeding limit and the child was there it still wouldn't died most likely.
scottet17 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:30:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would you say there is negligence on the parent/guardian for letting the child be in the street? Should they be charged as well?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:33:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:00:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Meh attempted murder is still punished differently from successful murder in NL.
Also the new current government is gravitating more towards a slightly more retributive system of justice sadly.
If you ask me the only purpose of the justice system should be to reduce the occurrence of crimeโretribution can't play any factor especially when it does the opposite of reducing crimes as making criminals suffer in prison breaks their psyche and increases the chance of recidivism
jesusonadinosaur ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:42:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I consider the US system clearly superior when it comes to the primary goal of justice, namely protecting the innocent.
Let's say we have two people fire a gun at another man during a conflict. Person A misses and hits the man in the leg and runs away, person B however is in the same situation but puts one in his head killing him.
Now their intent was no different. They are neither one morally superior. But if we punish person A the same as person B we've provided a peculiar incentive. Person A is logically better off shooting his victim again killing him (no witnesses) since he's getting the same punishment either way.
We set up our laws so that you can always help your self by stopping doing further harm. It's not for the sake of the offender, it's for the good of society that we positively incentivize doing no more damage.
That's why murder and attempted murder must not be treated the same.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:02:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, because if you actually run away after witnissing that someone is not dead and will likely survive it's very hard for the prosecutors to prove intent to kill if you didn't finish the job when you could have.
The point is intent to kill, if you shoot in the leg and don't shoot again whilst having ample opportunity to kill you clearly don't have an intent to kill.
jesusonadinosaur ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:25:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's simply not true. In either case both men could have had the intent to kill, and one changed his mind after seeing the reality of hurting someone and coming to his senses (this is in fact not unusual). And the mere act of pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger in and of itself is plenty to demonstrate intent to kill.
Or conversely neither could have had the intent to kill and one did so accidently. In which case you are basically left charging both for attempted murder or letting both off the same as someone who randomly shot a gun in the air.
VanCanFan75 ยท 185 points ยท Posted at 18:15:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In NHL hockey a high sticking penalty is 4 minutes rather than the usual 2 if the person you harmed starts bleeding. Intent may be same for a player, but if the outcome is more visibly upsetting it's worse.
Hambeljr14 ยท 125 points ยท Posted at 20:19:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think when they made the rule in hockey, the idea was "if you high stick another player, it may be unintentional but it still costs you two minutes. If you high stick another player hard enough that they bleed, it is an additional two minutes because typically the force required to do so is more than the former case. So even though the intent was the same, I think the additional two minutes stems from the probability you wielded your stick more violently than you should, even though that may not be the case. I see what you mean though it's still very similar to the original post though, just slightly different.
VanCanFan75 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:22:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Totally agree. Ive lost count of how many times i watch games and am surprised they are or are not bleeding after the high stick.
Paladar2 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:37:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, really depends where they were hit. Such a stupid rule, sometimes you see players high sticking intentionally but no blood, and sometimes it's completely accidental but the guy starts bleeding.
PavlikNej ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:07:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've never seen intentional high stick. Why would anyone do that?
Paladar2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:29:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because in the heat of action they get mad and just put their stick in their face. I'm not saying full on smashing. But that still did happen. Watch this :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esETGHljQi4
notsofastandy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:19:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When I read the original comment, the first thing I thought of was hockey. Although I was thinking more about the league's knack for coming down harder on dirty hits if they actually cause injury.
This is all to say that I happy someone else was thinking of hockey, too. Go Pens.
CalvinsCuriosity ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:29:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
why isn't fighting in hockey a crime?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:20:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
cos its fun
Saxon2060 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:41:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In English law, "actual bodily harm", causing bruising or abrasions, is different from "wounding", piercing all layers of skin.
I guess if you punch someone and give them a black eye that's actual body harm while if you split their brow open with a similar punch it's "wounding", a different crime.
(Obviously the penalty depends on all sorts of other stuff. See https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard is interested.)
HealthyBad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:59:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Many high sticking calls have very light contact. To draw blood would require more contact, which would be more reckless/illegal, which implies different intent/behavior
A more severe punishment for a more severe crime.
It's not 100% up to chance whether the guy bleeds or not, it's up to how hard you hit him in the face
VanCanFan75 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:25:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In theory yes but not all areas of the face have to be hit with the same force to draw blood. Also different materials (stick blade versus shaft versus butt end) making it really more about blood vs not blood. It's an imoerfect system, not asking the league to change it, but you get my point.
CherrySlurpee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:56:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dirty hot and the guy gets back on his feet? Keep playing.
Clean hit with an injury? SUSPEND HIM.
Aardvark_Man ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:59:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One of the biggest complaints about the AFL judiciary is that it's so results based.
Tackle someone or bump and collect them high, and they go off concussed and you'll be likely to miss a match.
If they get up and keep playing, probably a fine at worst.
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:26:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Penalties in hockey are so inconsistent that you can't take them too seriously, just have to be prepared for bullshit and a lot of random luck that can decide games. It's the nature of the sport.
InherentlyJuxt ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 15:46:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do you believe free will exists?
Portarossa ยท 127 points ยท Posted at 16:24:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, there's a question.
I honestly don't know. On the one hand, I'm not religious; I don't believe there's a guiding hand from any deity. On the other, we're all just made up of chemicals, and chemicals are just atoms, and atoms are just quarks and leptons, and there's nothing to suggest that any of that behaves in any way that's somehow not deterministic (or at least, probabilistic), even if the outcome isn't necessarily knowable ahead of time.
In the end, I think what matters is that we act as though we have free will. Imagine a scenario where you have two playing cards, one red and one black. You turn them over, and tell me to pick one. If I pick red, you'll kill me; if I pick black, I'll be set free. On the one hand, it matters very much which one I choose... but in the absence of knowledge, which of the two cards I choose isn't important at all; they're identical, and I have no way of being able to tell which is which. I act as though I have free will in this situation -- I make a choice -- but in reality, the choice I make doesn't matter. Whether I live or die is down to what is effectively the universe doing its thing.
abandoned_faces ยท 59 points ยท Posted at 18:23:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you for this. Good words to live by.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:42:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But why does it matter?
Why does is one action preferable over another, free will aside?
GhostReckon ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:59:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It matters because without the assumption that you have free will, life becomes entirely meaningless. If everything you do is already determined, then what's the point? And if you start thinking like this, then can you really do or choose anything to help yourself, if there really is no free will at all?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:03:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So my point is:
Atheism is the ultimate biological determinism. Random processes resulted in human consciousness, which is just happenstance programming.
Without ultimate meaning, without ultimate accountability, no action or decision matters. Maybe I help someone, maybe I hurt them, it doesn't matter. "Help" and "hurt" are just incidental constructs of our perceptions, so who cares?
Nocturnalized ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:08:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah yes.
The old โonly religion stops people from being evilโ spiel.
An atheist can be a humanist.
If you want to argue that, you should probably swap โatheismโ with โnihilismโ.
GhostReckon ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:24:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If there's no supernatural aspect to the universe, like atheism proposes, then how is there a supernatural and transcendent value to human life? I'm not saying atheists are terrible people that don't value human life, I'm saying that it is only possible for them to be humanist because they were first in a society that does/did believe in a transcendent higher value of human life. If society was structured to be built entirely off of atheism from the ground up, or if deist influence was completely removed from society, there wouldn't be any humanists. Atheism's (without any outside influence from other ideologies) logical conclusion is in fact that fellow humans are no greater or lesser than animals aside from their usefulness to you as you try to manipulate or dominate them for personal gain.
Nocturnalized ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:30:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Once again:
You are confusing atheists with nihilists.
Edit:
Also, you are completely full of shit. Human compassion does not stem from religion. It stems from hormones. Like every other feeling.
GhostReckon ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:02:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's unfair to say I am confusing atheism and nihilism. I know fully well that there are plenty of atheists who are not nihilists. I am saying that nihilism is atheism's furthest logical conclusion.
Religion is not the only source of compassion, but religions that teach compassion add so much more of it to the world.
GhostReckon ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:31:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every human being has an innate desire to pursue what they perceive as good. So if I may ask, what is your personal ultimate good for you to pursue? Suicide? Family? Destruction? Or philanthropy?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:35:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So as long you pursue what you perceive as good, this is OK?
Philanthropy is only an incidental construct under atheistic framework. It's only temporal, perceptual, and arises out of random processes. It doesn't matter if I kill myself, or kill other people because we're all just dirt in the end.
Don't like it? That's OK. That's your personal morality. Doesn't matter to me.
pupperjax ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:51:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But in the end, we have an instinct to seek comfort and security due to our survival instinct. Because of the constructs of society, you'd be punished and perhaps even have your own life taken for killing another human. So it would matter to you, because ceasing to exist is terrifying to the psyche.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:53:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Herein lies the issue - as long as you don't get caught, it's OK. In the atheistic biological determinism model, raw, pure, self interest is preferable. So if it means killing someone or protecting them, whatever works for the organism, so be it.
What I'm saying is, people can say they don't believe in God, but we function as a society as if we do.
pupperjax ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:12:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True. Social conditioning is alive and well.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:59:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:44:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Where do the rules arise from then?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:18:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:08:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think it's a silly answer.
You have a consciousness you don't even understand. An observable world more complex than we can understand or even catalog. You don't come across a house and say "well, I guess it arose from random processes."
Does it introduce more questions? For sure. But those questions have been the cornerstone for the foundations of beliefs for billions of people for all of history. Questions like, if there is a transcendent force behind it all, who or what is it? What does it/he/she expect of me? How do I live it light of this?
Sir Isaac Newton believed in God. Was he an idiot?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:26:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Seeing a complex object and assuming a builder is stupid?
OK. Just so we're clear.
GhostReckon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:13:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because there is no way for a society to function at all if there is not a transcendent value to unite everyone. With no transcendent value, society would turn to chaos immediately.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:54:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. People rage about Judeo-Christian values but they rely on them every waking moment. The justice system, the economy, fundamental basic rights - that shit only exists because of the reformation and western values.
rsfc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:47:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nonsense. One could argue, and many have that belief in an all-knowing god means that all things are predetermined. Calvinism was a popular Christian sect that basically believed this.
People care because their is a biological imperative to care. Latent and taught morals are largely to the benefit of our species, which is why they exist.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:52:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am well-versed in Calvinism. In one sense, yes, Calvinism states that things are predetermined. But it also posits that God limits his power to involve human agency which he has imbued. When the Bible says that man was created in God's image, that doesn't mean physically, it means that we have the ability to imagine a world that does not yet exist and create it.
In evolutionary biology, even if humans have been given biological imperatives to care, it is simply a coincidental construct and is meaningless as to whether you believe it is right or wrong. In fact, right and wrong are meaningless concepts.
GateauBaker ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:42:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does quantum mechanics not contradict the deterministic assumption?
Portarossa ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:10:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I said deterministic or probabilistic, because I don't think it makes much difference; either way, there's no guiding consciousness behind it. There's nothing that could be said to be imposing 'will' on the system, if you get me.
GateauBaker ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're right, I missed the probability. With that being said, probability is a simplifying tool we use because we don't understand the mechanism behind the outcome, or the mechanism has too many factors to calculate within a reasonable time frame. It's an estimation not an objective statement of reality. Therefore, that mechanism can very well be free will as one of the determining factors as outlandish as it sounds.
Charliethebrit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:24:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You might be interested to learn about Bell's inequality. This interpretation that probability just handles cases where's too complicated to compute in a reasonable time or we don't have access to the information is called the hidden variables model of the universe, and through experimentation we can show that the universe fundementally doesn't work this way. Super mind blowing :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem?wprov=sfla1
GateauBaker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:14:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's definitely interesting and goes mostly over my head. But from what I read, it doesn't seem to contradict hidden variables without certain simplifying assumptions. It only puts limits on what does hidden variables can be.
Charliethebrit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:44:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're right, there is an assumption of locality for the hidden variables, so it definitely doesn't rule out global hidden variables. But i think that it's a reasonable hypothesis to lose faith in a hidden variables model of the universe. Of course i am open to the idea that this may be overturned in the future.
Portarossa ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:25:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It could be, but you're still just sidestepping the question of whether or not the probabilistic effects at a quantum scale are 'guided' or not. I don't see any reason to believe they are. If it's 'because we don't understand the mechanism behind the outcome, or the mechanism has too many factors to calculate within a reasonable time frame', then it's deterministic even if we don't understand how; if there really is something random lurking in the machinery, then it doesn't matter because it's still not an imposed will. If I did see a reason to believe they were guided, I might just as readily believe in a god or fate figure directly impacting human events.
It just feels a bit like kicking the can down the road.
GateauBaker ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:12:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not side-stepping it's just a question that can't be answered. I truly believe I gave an honest possibility that it could be guided by a greater power. I just don't have the ability to go any further than that. It doesn't need to be random. Does anything discount free will from appearing random to our eyes if it existed but not actually be random?
Agreed. Because I don't believe anyone can actually answer the question.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:07:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, you die because the maniac with the gun shoots you for picking the wrong card. There's nothing universal about it. That guy "chose" to shoot you. There wasn't some random sequence of events in his brain... Or wait... Was there? Everything in his life did lead up to him buying the gun and eventuality pulling the trigger. Just like everything in your life led up to you picking the wrong card.
Hmmmmm...
ivyandroses112233 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:18:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Great way of putting it!
Dabs-on-Haters ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:32:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Try not picking a card. The cards wouldnโt exactly work as Schrรถdingerโs cats as I would know exactly what they are and the outcomes of each choice. One choice would be life and the other death. Weather you live or die would be down to what card your subconscious and life experience make you pick. Its not the universe doing its thing, itโs you.
fenderbender ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:55:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We're made up of random chemicals and atoms but is our consciousness?
vtesterlwg ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 20:16:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
lol no
pjabrony ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 17:48:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I do. I figure that if free will doesn't exist and everything's predetermined, then the predetermination has led me to believe in free will, and since I don't have the free will to change that belief, I shouldn't.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:17:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You may be predetermined to change that belief.
ClosetWeeb3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:06:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But if you decide to change that belief anyway..it would be because you were predetermined to do so.
Shouldn't is a silly word to use here.
pjabrony ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:13:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, but I haven't. In other words, I might be wrong, but I have no reason to change my view.
pigeonwiggle ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:12:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
FTFY
standard_error ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:01:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Determinism (the idea that the universe follows strict natural laws, so that everything that happens is a necessary consequence of things that happened before) does not necessarily imply that there is no free will. On the contrary, the majority belief among academic philosophers on this question is compatibilism, meaning that free will is compatible with determinism.
Unlimited_Karma ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:13:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This view never made sense to me, assuming everything is predetermined then there is simply no room for free will. You can still think that you have it but it does not change reality.
standard_error ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:19:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are many different accounts of compatibilism. One goes something like this: my brain receives information, and performs actions based on this information. This is what making a choice means. Let's say I make a choice for good reasons. Now, if I was put in the identical situation once more (including my memories etc), I would make the same choice again. This is determinism. But I made that choice for good reasons, so why would I not make the same choice again? This is compatibilism.
What it comes down to is that your intuitive conception of "free will" is incoherent. With a coherent definition, free will becomes compatible with determinism.
To go deeper into this, I recommend Daniel Dennet's book Elbow Room.
Unlimited_Karma ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:40:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As far as my personal interpretation of "free will" goes, if an outcome is always the same then it doesn't matter why you "chose" that if you or your brain is predetermined to go that way.
standard_error ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:11:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A couple of points:
First, determined doesn't mean predictable. Max Tegmark has pointed out that there's probably no way to calculate the outcome of a decision other than actually making it, meaning that the only way the outcome can come about is by you taking in the information, consciously weighing the alternatives, and deciding what you want to do. Thus, it's not like you're just riding along a path that was laid out for you - you are actively participating in creating that path. The fact that there's only one way it can go doesn't change that.
Second, how could it make sense for you to make a different decision in an identical situation? If you had good reasons to make choice A in one run of the situation, why would you ever want to make choice B in another run? Since everything is exactly the same, you always prefer the same alternative. The only way I can see if getting out of this is to add true random chance to your decision process (quantum mechanics might provide this) - but how could adding random noise to your decision ever make you more free? To me, it just seems to make you less free.
Unlimited_Karma ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:56:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not talking about predictability, I'm just going off from the assumption that if everything is predetermined, then so must be the process to "decide" something. You don't choose what you like or dislike or how your brain works so why does it matter if you get to participate? Aren't you just a slave to the circumstances?
It doesn't make sense to me, which is exactly why I cannot see free will coexisting along determinism. If a person would always chose the same option under the same circumstances then there aren't any actual choices since there is only a single possible path. It would just be the illusion of choices.
And if you were to add randomness to the process, would the decision even belong to you? Or would it just be an accident of the universe?
samuraibutter ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:39:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is for /u/Unlimited_Karma and "they" is /u/standard_error
I wanted to say what I'm about to say in response to an earlier comment, but it doesn't really matter where I say it. Basically what it comes down to is, like the other person has said, the outcome of 'decisions' and 'choices' occur based on the calculated processes of all the neurons and molecules and atoms of our brains and such. In that way it is determined, but that doesn't mean predictable like they said before. The reason the debate even exists and is so difficult to conceptualize is that all our memories and past experiences factor into the thought processes that make up our consciousness. Everybody has such an unbelievable amount of factors influencing what goes into determining the outcomes that literally every single person on earth will come to a decision based on unique reasoning. We make hundreds or even thousands of choices every day, and all these factor into this determining process. So that's how determinism and free will can coexist, yeah things are determined but this determination process is so unique it will result in unique outcomes for everyone to the point where if everyone is so different in the sum of all their decisions, opinions, and reasonings, it could be called free will.
standard_error ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:05:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm still making choices, even if they're determined. My choices are part of the mechanism through which the universe plays out, but they could not come about by any means than me actively weighing my options and picking the one I prefer most.
When I first started thinking about this issue, I thought your view was obviously correct. Then I read, and thought, a fair bit on compatibilism. I found it confusing and hard to grasp initially, but now it seems like the obvious truth on this matter. That's not at all to say that you're wrong and I'm right, or that you will change your view - it's only to encourage you to spend some more time with this question, because you just might end up changing your mind. And compatibilism, as a bonus, is a much more comfortable position to take psychologically.
obscureferences ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's comforting to consider that, even if everything is determined and you have no control over your actions, you're still a cog in the machine. You have a script but you're still the actor. Your actions will have their butterfly effects and contribute to the march of time.
However, while a choice with a determined outcome is technically still a choice, the control you have over that choice is an illusion. You're exerting your will, but your will is not free, because even it is being controlled.
So while I agree choices and will exist, suggesting they're compatible with determinism is just splitting hairs, because free will is the point of discussion, and it is not free.
Quicheauchat ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:57:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No. Every single decision you make is calculable. What we lack are tools and models.
BoozeoisPig ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:20:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It depends on what you mean by "free", if you mean free from the physical laws of the universe, no, we are physical beings in the universe, we are the universe. If you mean free as a quantification to the degree that you can act independently from the immediate whims of the will of others, that exists on a spectrum that is determined by an infinitely complex matrix of action, intent, and the result of actions made with intent.
Ironically, if there were any deities that would actually make us less free, to the degree that that deity knows the consequences of their actions. If we lived in a universe with an omnipotent deity, free will, by any reasonable definition, would be impossible, because that deity could not help but act with conscious intent, because it would know the consequences of all of its actions and it would be capable of causing any consequence that is logically conceivable to be committed. I don't even know what it would mean to say that anything could exist that has free will, because the only reference we have for the nature of all things is our current universe which is both random and determinable. For you and your choices to be the result of anything that is either or both random and determinable is to not be free. And even if souls do exist, it is impossible to even conceive of them as being made up of properties that are neither random nor determined.
So not only is free will only able to accurately describe a very limited quality. But the religious conception of the reality of the universe, according to many people, if true, rather than allowing for free will, would actually make impossible even that very limited quality of the universe that can reasonably be called free will, because then all of our actions would be the inevitable and precise result of very precise intent, rather than being free from any intent at all, and merely the result of unintended chaos.
emjaytheomachy ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:39:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No.
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 19:43:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What did the determinist say after he fell down the stairs?
"Glad I got that over with."
wittyname83 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:28:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Technically, no. It's fairly well established that any decision you make has already been subconsciously made and neurons firing before you are consciously aware of your choice.
One could then further argue that the atoms that make up everything were put together in such a way that your choice has been predetermined since the big bang.
That's a fun thought experiment...
But, on a practical level, we must behave as though you are still responsible for your actions or else society would fall apart.
nordinarylove ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:51:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, robots (non free will entities) could easily create a society that doesn't fall apart.
kmoneyrecords ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:54:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nope - the illusion of free will stems from everyone having a different set of knowledge, information, and experiences that influence their future decisions in different ways. The reality is, in unknown situations where there is low-information and past experience, we will all react generally the same way like our evolutionary ancestors programmed us to.
Example: If you went to a crowded library where people are accustomed to dead silence, and suddenly fired off a gun, everyone in the library would turn and react the same way - none of them had any expectation, information, or experience with the situation and thus react with the naked human response - - not one person's "free will" in that situation will allow them to just ignore the loud and sudden sound.
Mikeisright ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:46:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This actually comes off to me like a strong case for free will, which is odd... you say that knowledge, experience, and information can result in different reactions. While I get what you're trying to say about certain "evolutionary reactions" (like a gunshot being fired), 99% of my daily reactions probably wouldn't elicit a fight or flight response.
I actually like that you sort of supported the case that maybe free will is actually just having a larger awareness of consequences for said actions - so while one may argue it's not necessarily a "conscious choice," it is certainly another pathway that your body may have adapted to (i.e., "chose" due to new information).
kmoneyrecords ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:46:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well it's just that we are very stimuli-driven creatures...everything is still reaction to stimuli and different reactions just come from personal history, all the while still chasing the same needs and desires as any other creature and our brain pathways, including those for reward (such as for conditioning, addiction), all work in predictable, almost mechanical ways. In the same way, two squirrels may hide nuts in different places based on past success, but I wouldn't call that free will.
pigeonwiggle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:11:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
no, everything has a price.
-rimshot-
Fullerachi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:05:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Watch The Brain on pbs. Super interesting!
Xudda ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:21:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If it did or didn't -- what would the distinction change?
hearse83 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:22:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I believe in determinism, but note in a fate that's bestowed on you necessarily.
It would be more that I believe in the fact that you can't help the decisions you make because there are so many preceding variables that factor into them that it would be impossible in any given circumstance for things to go another way.
I_Enjoy_Sitting ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 17:12:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This would mean murder and attempted murder are equal...ethically speaking.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 17:53:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Which they should be as far as the law goes.
That's what a rational justice system whose sole purpose is prevention of crime would strategically come to.
If you punish murder harder than attempted murder then your goal isn't to reduce murder but to provide satisfaction for the people after the fact that someone has been punished for the death which is another thing you can talk about I guess.
3holes2tits1fork ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:02:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, attempted murder is punished less severely so that the person in question has reason to not finish the job if they fuck up a kill. If the charge is the same, you better not let your victim get away.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:07:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No that's not what attempted murder isโintent to kill is an element of the crime of attempted murder.
If you didn't try to finish the job it's not attempted murder but possibly aggrevated assault; for it to be attempted murder you must have had the intend to murder someone; the only thing that saved the other person was someone else stopping you, luck, or your own incompetence.
If you purposefully not finish the job by whatever means it's not attempted murder and the defence can use that as evidence that there was no intent to kill but only to wound or to cause pain or whatever.
3holes2tits1fork ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:45:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For first degree attempted murder, yes, and it carries a maximum term of life in prison, the same as a standard charge for first degree murder. However, failing to finish the job does not drop the charge down to aggrevated assault if the intent was present at any point, which using a gun frequently satisfies, or even planning it out and purchasing the materials. Anyway, the crime is lessened for a myriad of reasons, but a large one is deterrence from taking further action when things get out of the killer's hands.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:00:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 20:04:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Backing out at the last point is not "attempted murder".
Attempted murder is when you fire the bullet but miss; as in the failure is outside of your volition; when you actually try to kill someone but fail.
What you describe is called "planning to murder" in a lot of jurisidictions and should indeed be considered lesser than actual attempted murder.
vtesterlwg ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:24:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the entire point of the justice system is to stop people from doing bad things. therefore it doesn't really matter whether we criminalize attempted murder as less than murder so long as they're sufficiently criminalized so that people don't do them.
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:27:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The problem is that people who attempted a murder but failed are just as much a danger to society as those who succeeded through something as simple as the bullet missing through a blow of the wind or being stopped by someone at the last moment.
But the last group gets let into society more quickly and with less extensive rehabilitationโseems like a dangerous situation to me.
sierraescape ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:06:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Meh, on a level you are also punishing people who think out the murder more, which seems justifiable.
vtesterlwg ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:17:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
no not really because if you attempt murder the person doesn't die, which is in fact the problem
Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:20:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah and that's results oriented thinking.
If the purpose of the law is to reduce the number of murders then punishing attempted murders differently from successful ones neither has a deterring nor rehabilitative effect.
In the end people who attempt murder require the same amount of deterrents and rehabilitation to stop murders.
vtesterlwg ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:31:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If the purpose of the law is to reduce the number of murdersis also results oriented thinking.Kringspier_Des_Heren ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:36:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No "results oriented thinking" is just an idiom; it doesn't mean that.
It just means that you judge an action which has elements of chance in it based on the outcome of the action rather than the action itself while the outcome is heavily influenced by chance.
It's a common trapping in poker for people to fall for that for instance where it can often happen that the best play will still lead to a loss and a good poker player realizes that even though the play led to a big loss it was the best course of action all the same with the incomplete information and elements of chance available.
Calithin ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 17:57:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How are they not? You had every intention of doing that thing, you just failed.
Edit for clarification: I realize there is less net harm, obviously, but you are just as culpable ethically in either case.
pigeonwiggle ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:09:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ethically, sure... but at what point are you guilty ethically? how far into the attempt do you ahve to get? if the attempted murder is taking a gun to someone's house with intent to kill, only to realize they're not home, and then realize what you're doing is awful and you go home and vow never to do that again... is that different than taking the shot and missing and then realizing the error of your ways... is that different from taking the shot, missing, taking a few more shots, missing them all, and then getting in close with a rope, and getting it around their neck until they start kicking... realizing Then your error, and backing off at that point...
are these all ethically the same?
Calithin ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:24:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They are not "identical" certainly, degrees to everything, but they are all in the realm of ethically "bad", yeah. You tried to kill somebody.
BanMeBabyOneMoreTime ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:18:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because nobody likes a quitter.
FinnSolomon ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:49:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now really, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for Attempted Chemistry?
BanMeBabyOneMoreTime ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:19:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Obama got one for Attempted Peace.
CodeMonkey24 ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 17:26:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Both are equally terrible from my perspective. Both decided to endanger the lives of others with their own stupidity and selfishness. The only difference, in my view, is that A is guilty of attempted murder, while B is guilty of murder.
Portarossa ยท 65 points ยท Posted at 17:37:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, take the opposite approach. Say there are two lifeguards, C and D. One day, while he's on his shift, C spots a child drowning in the ocean, dives in and saves him -- at great risk to himself. That child is the son of the mayor, and the mayor goes all out with his gratitude, rewarding C with lavish gifts and paying off his student loans. All of a sudden, C is getting untold wealth and adulation.
Can D make a case that he deserves the same treatment, despite the fact that he didn't save the child or take the risk? After all, he would have -- no one doubts D's bravery, or his devotion to the job. The only thing that stopped him was that he wasn't on shift that day; in fact, he wasn't anywhere near the beach, and was completely unaware of the child drowning.
The question is this: is it fair that C gets the financial reward and D gets nothing? Instinctively, it seems obvious that the answer is yes -- but what's the difference between this and the drink driving question up there? In both cases, the only difference is timing. If A and B are equally bad, do we judge 'moral badness' by its worst case scenario? If C and D are equally good, is it ever fair to reward an individual for anything that includes an element of pure chance?
I don't think there's a 'correct' answer; if I did, it probably wouldn't mess with my head so much. As yet, though, I haven't figured out quite what the rule is.
CodeMonkey24 ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 17:47:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The second example isn't quite the same though. Because in the first, both individuals made a decision and took an action. But in your lifeguard example, only one takes action. The other, while prepared to, doesn't take any action (or doesn't have the opportunity). Intention is often irrelevant. Intentions are internal to each person, but actions are quantifiable.
What you're really talking about is more akin to winning a lottery. Everything in life is subject to random chance. Some people are given opportunities that someone else, with identical qualifications, might be denied through circumstance alone.
Portarossa ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 17:58:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And there is the point. Neither A nor B intended to kill anyone. If A had called a taxi instead, and the taxi driver had turned up drunk (unknown to A) and killed the child, would A be morally liable? After all, had he not been drinking, he wouldn't have called the taxi in the first place. His intention was pure, but he was still directly responsible in a cosmic sense; the driver wouldn't have been there had A not made the 'right' decision. The end result -- the dead child -- is the same, but we wouldn't hold A liable (nor, I would argue, should we).
Look at it another way. If intentions don't matter but actions do, is it the same to kill someone accidentally as it is to do it on purpose? If I lean over my balcony and accidentally dislodge a flowerpot so it crashes to the ground, I intend to do no harm. I would comfortably say that doing it by accident is morally 'better' than doing it on purpose and aiming for that sweet old lady walking down the street four storeys down. Either way, Doris is going to wind up a smear on the pavement -- but one way, I would say, my moral culpability is lessened.
EDIT: Actually, there's an even easier solution. Let's say that there are two drowning children. One is the son of the mayor, and the other is an orphan. Both lifeguards take the same risk, but by chance -- they have no way of knowing which will lead to the financial reward -- they say one will save one child and the other will save the other. Both have the same intentions and both take the same actions. Is D justified in asking for half of the financial reward?
IUsedToBeGlObAlOb23 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:07:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is like saying two identically ethical people are placed in two different countries. One is shot. Does the other deserve to be shot?
No, of course not, because ethics alone do not actually cause or deserve anything to happen - the universe does not care, and so the consequences of these happenings should not be pinned on the ethics of recipients.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:55:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Portarossa ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:02:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Take a religious line, then. Imagine St. Peter, tallying souls into heaven. When you're counting off the entry qualifications, do C and D get the same 'points'?
It's not difficult to imagine a situation where there is a moral reward.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Portarossa ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:19:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
OK then, look at it this way. What if C and D were both off shift that day, and a third lifeguard -- E -- wasn't as good at swimming and couldn't save the child? In this case, the child dies. Do C and D get the same points as they would if the child died? (After all, they both have the intent to save the child; they just lack the opportunity.) Does E get the same points as they do if they succeed even if he tries and fails? Would they all get fewer points than if the child dies than they saved the child? Is intent more important than action -- and if it is, why do A and B get the same punishment from St. Peter?
The goal (at least, as I see it) isn't to determine an absolute or a relative morality, but a consistent morality. It's absolutely fine to say 'Everyone gets the same points; pack it up, let's go home'. The problem is when you have to apply that same logical ruleset to different scenarios -- like lifeguard E failing to save the kid. That's why people have been debating this shit for thousands of years.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:27:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Portarossa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:38:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But that's exactly what you're doing: you're judging D as 'good' (or at least, as good as C) because of something he didn't actually do, just because he would have done it if he'd had the opportunity. 'If he'd had the opportunity' is the key phrase there. Can you be 'morally good' without actions? What would that even mean?
When you apply any sort of relative scale to it, it becomes a bit of a minefield -- but as soon as you define one person as 'better' than another (and you can definitely do that; a person who is able to and chooses not to save the child must, by any rational morality, be 'less good' than someone who is able to and successfully saves the drowning child), you have to consider how that morality scales.
Aerolfos ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:33:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Deontologists disagree! The two ways of thinking are two of the main schools of thought in ethics, and they are still trying to figure out which one is right...
Farmer771122 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:10:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
as if there's an answer key out there.
Aerolfos ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:19:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The best one then. A lot in ethics is outdated and we believe to have found better ways to think about things. Not so with intention vs. consequences.
BanMeBabyOneMoreTime ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The problem isn't that there's no key, it's that there are way too many competing ones and nobody knows which, if any, is the real one.
Farmer771122 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:48:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
as if there's a real one
strikethreeistaken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:58:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is a correct answer: What actually happened? Philosophers always seem to forget that theory models reality, but reality does not model theory. What actually happens is more important than what COULD or WOULD happen. It is good to recognize what could or would happen as it potentially gives you more control over reality, but in the end, it is only reality that matters.
Portarossa ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:09:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree. We are capable of figuring out general rules, and determining what we call 'fairness' by deciding where the line in the sand would be. To do that, we need that hypothetical theory. Once you've got something that 'actually happened', you still have to decide how to deal with that -- ideally in a way that's consistent with the principles of the society you live in (or what you want that society to look like.)
Analysis of the might-have-been is crucial.
strikethreeistaken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:59:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fairness is subjective just as value is subjective. You are essentially repeating part of what I said. Re:
But ultimately, only reality is rewarded. Hillary Clinton and the mass media KNEW she would win the presidency. Reality spoke up and Trump is president. Would have, could have, should have, doesn't matter when it comes time to ask who is the current president.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:53:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would say that these two questions are fundamentally different, because one is concerned with ethics and morality, while the other is concerned with fairness, which is a separate thing from morality.
Because the lifeguard question is not a question of morality, intent is irrelevant, in the cases of both lifeguards. The mayor is not rewarding Lifeguard C's intent, he is rewarding the outcome. Suppose that the boy had drowned despite Lifeguard C's best efforts. The mayor might still be grateful for the lifeguard's actions, but he would not be heaping lavish gifts on him.
As for fairness, what exactly are you asking? Are you asking if the mayor is being unfair, or are you asking if there is some sort of cosmic unfairness at play here? For me, the answer would be no either way. It's unlucky, but that's not the same thing as unfair.
Now, as to the drunk driving question.
The justice system weighs both intent and action/outcome when sentencing a crime. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. I think I would place far more weight on intent than I would on outcome.
If a man tries to murder his wife and the only reason he is not successful is because he missed all her vital organs, despite shooting her five times? I think intent should be the primary consideration there, and I think his sentence should be the same as if he had succeeded in killing her.
So is it unfair that Drunk Driver A gets charged with a DUI, gets some points on his license and no jailtime; while Drunk Driver B gets charged with manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years in prison?
I don't know that fairness is the word I would use, but I would say that the disparity is unjust. I think the punishments for drunk driving need to be far more severe than what they currently are. Perhaps they should scale with just how drunk you are.
IUsedToBeGlObAlOb23 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:04:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The boy did not die because the driver was ethically wrong, he died because the car physically collided with him. Actions merit consequences, not the ethical motivations driving these actions. Ethically, the divers are of course the same if they would act the same way - but our motivations are never the reason things happen, actions are, and if your perfect ethics never cause material actions to create negative/positive consequences then really no one really cares - in this case, it would be the mayor that didn't care.
MozeeToby ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:54:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But you just said they are equally terrible, then you say one is guilty of a much more serious crime than the other.
nsfy33 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:26:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
LeakyLycanthrope ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:25:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see what you're getting at, but the whole point of the thought experiment is that A didn't intend any harm. Therefore, they can't be guilty of attempted murder.
Also, legally speaking, murder and attempted murder require a specific intent to kill. So A isn't guilty of attempted murder legally or ethically.
Edit: I accidentally a word.
MasterChiefGuy5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:46:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In my personal opinion they would should be charged with differently labeled things, A would get charged with something like potential murder, and be B would be charged with accidental murder.
BanMeBabyOneMoreTime ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:19:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reckless Endangerment vs. Manslaughter really.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:13:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But neither would be murder. The first would be manslaughter most likely, the second wouldn't be anything.
vtesterlwg ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 20:30:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean the real issue is that the guy died. Should one really not drive after one's had a few sips of beer?
InfiniteRival1 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:15:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure people wouldn't consider A a bad person. If you drive home intoxicated whether or not anything happened you're still an asshole. If something does happen just reinforces that they're an asshole. Doesn't mean A is any less of a dick.
Black_Hipster ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:17:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel as though they'd both be equally as unethical. The difference is that one person seen the consequences of their unethical decision and the other got away free.
Putting this into a different- though more extreme -context, I'd imagine A and B both being rapists. Both of these people have made the same decision to rape and have both escaped. The woman that A raped however, turned to suicide from the event. I don't think that that would make B any less of an awful person than A.
DayDrunk11 ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 17:03:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel like that's an easy answer? They're both awful for willingly disregarding any potential person on the road so they could drive drunk. Why does one need to be worse, they're both just awful
BASEDME7O ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 17:29:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because you clicked on a thread about philosophical questions
Portarossa ยท 70 points ยท Posted at 17:10:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think that's sidestepping the issue a little bit. The point is, we do tend to see one of them -- B -- as being worse. The question is why that is. Are the scenarios equivalently moral? If so, should we go easier on B, because it was 'bad luck' that made a child step into the road at that particular instance? Or should we be harder on A, because it was only fortune that stopped him being a murderer too? If that's the case, do we have a responsibility to judge all moral decisions by their worst-case-scenario outcome, even if things went well?
fenderbender ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:53:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but wasn't the point of the video to make a distinction between types of luck and responsibility; moral and casual responsibility? We shouldn't go easier on B because it was "bad luck" because the reason behind him killing the child is because he was drunk driving which was his moral responsibility not to do.
Now the argument for whether or not the justice system should judge and penalize someone based on worst-case ontario is a different story.
strikethreeistaken ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:55:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because something that is real happened. A child was run over. For person 'A', they are still a bad person for creating an environment where something bad is likely to occur, but since nothing bad actually resulted, judgement is saved for another day.
otis_reading ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:06:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're conflating morals with outcomes in the justice system.
I don't tend to see each person as worse. Nobody really does. But we treat them different with different legal outcomes for a whole host of reasons that have little to do with morality.
Portarossa ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 18:09:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not; I don't mention the justice system at all in that post. But I don't think such conflation is necessarily bad.
And for a lot of reasons that do. We hope that our justice system will be, you know, just. If that's not a moral question, what is?
But, I mean, this is a philosophical question. If you could design a perfectly moral justice system, what would its answer be?
otis_reading ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:07:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Justice isn't exclusively morality. It is about outcomes. If I negligently toss a lit matchstick to the ground and it lands on your cotton ball, I owe you $.05. If I negligently throw a matchstick to the ground (same mens rea as before) and it lands in your gas can and burns down your house, I owe you thousands and thousands of dollars. Same action and intent on the actor's part, but different outcomes and thus different legal remedies.
Criminal justice works the same way. The "punishment" has to do with the victim in no small part. Thus, the reason we have sentencing hearings and victim input at that stage. If there is no victim then the punishment obviously differs. None of that has to do with the morality of the action that has already been deemed illegal.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:47:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't necessarily have a solution, but I just wanted to chime in and say this is kind of mind-numbing stuff to think about.
The easiest way for me to look at it is to just come to the conclusion that neither people who drove drunk are bad people, they just made bad decisions and one will have to pay for it while the other won't. Life isn't always fair.
Portarossa ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:47:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree. Take your lit match, for example. The question is, 'Does the morality of an action change depending the outcomes of it?'
That's an important philosophical question, and one that the justice system absolutely should be concerned with -- but it's very much linked with the morality of the action.
PM_ME_YOUR_BOOK_IDEA ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:06:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To be honest, I see them both as equally bad. Just because one's actions resulted as expected and the other didn't is irrelevant in me deciding that neither should have done what they did. The reason society looks worse on B is because his case is the one heard about while A isn't covered by the news.
SteveRudzinski ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 17:20:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're just claiming something. I don't see B as worse, I see them as equally shitty. Person B just by chance had to deal with the consequences of their shit decision.
But I don't think B is worse, I think they're just as bad as every A that chose to drove drunk and just so happened to not kill anyone.
Portarossa ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 17:41:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Collectively, I would say that most people would say that B is worse -- B would certainly get the higher punishment; after all, A is getting off scot free. But saying they're both equally bad is a valid philosophical position. It just leads to some weird conclusions, if you follow the line down.
Let's take a different approach. Say there are two lifeguards, C and D. One day, while he's on his shift, C spots a child drowning in the ocean, dives in and saves him -- at great risk to himself. That child is the son of the mayor, and the mayor goes all out with his gratitude, rewarding C with lavish gifts and paying off his student loans. All of a sudden, C is getting untold wealth and adulation.
Can D make a case that he deserves the same treatment, despite the fact that he didn't save the child or take the risk? After all, he would have -- no one doubts D's bravery, or his devotion to the job. The only thing that stopped him was that he wasn't on shift that day; in fact, he wasn't anywhere near the beach, and was completely unaware of the child drowning.
The question is this: is it fair that C gets the financial reward and D gets nothing? Instinctively, it seems obvious that the answer is yes -- but what's the difference between this and the drink driving question up there? In both cases, the only difference is timing. If A and B are equally bad, do we judge 'moral badness' by its worst case scenario? If C and D are equally good, is it ever fair to disproportionately reward an individual for anything that includes an element of pure chance? And if you say yes to that, is it ever fair to disproportionately punish an individual for something that includes an element of pure chance too?
Just_an_AMA_noob ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:00:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Okay, let me propose this solution. In real life, people donโt usually have the exact same circumstances minus one variable. Usually there are multiple variables.
Anyway, for the drunk driving example letโs say we enact a new law to more precisely determine the punishment. Streets will be given a risk rating based on their overall safety as well as their busyness at certain times of the day. So therefore when you go drunk driving in the morning on an empty country road, you will receive a lighter penalty than if you went driving in a crowded city street in the middle of rushhour. Hereโs the thing, it doesnโt matter if you end up crashing or not. The punishment will be the same regardless. Therefore, there will be no factor of moral luck and A and B will be treated equally.
Problem with a system like that is that computing such risks is tremendously difficult, but just because itโs difficult doesnโt mean it isnโt the right course of action.
Also in the mayor example, it is unfair that the lifeguard is being heavily rewarded, heโs just doing his job.
kalekar ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:47:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is not fair. In an ideal world, the mayor would understand that any lifeguard would do the same thing in that situation and reward all lifeguards as a whole.
In an ideal world, A and B would get the same punishment because they both recklessly endangered the lives of others. If we treated every DUI as manslaughter, I'm sure we would have far less occurrences.
Let's say that teachers E and F both leave loaded guns in their desks, and a student of E finds it and shoots someone. Even though nothing happened in F's class, we would still punish them.
In the ideal world, we would judge a person's actions by all possible outcomes it could create, not the actual one. It's difficult however to do that, and I would say that human elements of compassion, how we perceive justice, and the need to attach consequences to an individual's actions are what creates these unequal outcomes.
raulduke05 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:19:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
damn dude, i did not expect to have to think this hard today.
ltyboy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:01:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think in this new analogy you could make the case that neither deserve it, as for C to receive such special treatment for just doing his job doesn't make sense. Those lifeguards are getting paid to risk their life, that's what they are expected to do. Now, if C was just some guy walking down a beach who was a strong swimmer but wasn't employed as a lifeguard and did the same thing, he does deserve special recognition. Most people would not risk their lives as he did, so he deserves a special reward in this instance.
Portarossa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:19:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But does he deserve more recognition than an equivalent person, D, who would have jumped in to save the boy but stopped to tie his shoelace and got there two minutes later?
In this case, we'd argue that the action makes a big difference -- of course C should be rewarded and D not; D didn't actually save the kid, after all -- but why is that different to the case of A and B, where we often view them as equally bad but B's actions have a much worse consequence on the world?
ltyboy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:24:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well in the case of A and B, they both actually did the action, and therefore I don't think they are morally and worse or better. But the justice system can't punish on morality alone. There are a lot of shitty people who do shitty things that go unnoticed-if we were to punish every one of them the jails would be completely full with tons leftover.
ChicagoManualofFunk ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:35:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That "just claiming something" is an important thing to be able to do. Being able to intuiting a majority moral stance is key to getting at the interesting parts of an apparent contradiction posed by a thought experiment. It's fine that you have an opinion already formed, but the fact of the matter is that we treat people differently based on moral luck. Both casually in our general opinions of them and in the legal system we have created that is based, largely, on our shared cultural values. There's a reason DUIs are misdemeanors and involuntary manslaughter is generally treated as a felony.
calaboozer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:58:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So if person A got pulled over on the way home, do you think that A and B should get the same punishment? They are equally shitty people that have made the exact same set of decisions.
bobtheflob ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:42:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This was something we discussed in law school. In just about any legal system, the person who killed the child would be in much more trouble then the person who just drove drunk. So there are practical implications for how we feel about it, and we've clearly made a decision.
BlazingFox ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:02:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think most people around me would believe that the action of the person is terrible no matter the outcome as long as that terrible outcome is one to be reasonably expected according to data and intuition or deduction. I think that belief is shown in America's drunk driving laws.
benjamarchi ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:56:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
According to laws here in Brazil, they both intended harm when they decided to drink and drive.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:08:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It wasnโt out of their hands though. They couldโve just not drank. The choice is there.
It doesnโt matter if other people get lucky and donโt end up with any accidents. B made the choice out of their own free will to take the risk and chance for the likelihood of that to happen. Itโs about self responsibility.
Itโs kind of like when you make the choice to gamble and lose a shit ton of money and other people will spend the same amount of money and win more. Youโre the one who made the choice to accept the probability. If you donโt want to lose, donโt gamble. You already know beforehand that you could end up with the worse case scenario. If you donโt want that, then donโt put yourself in a situation to be playing the โmoral luckโ roulette.
dsds548 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:08:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well here's the rational thought about luck. Luck is always at play in life. No matter what you do, it will affect the outcome. Whether it's a job interview and there's traffic and you are late to the interview etc. Luck is an essential part of life. Something that cannot be controlled and is accept by most as part of life.
Let's go back to the drivers A and B. Yes it seems unfair that Driver B gets punished much more severe than driver A. Yet they both decided to take that risk/gamble. Fortunately for Driver A, he rolled a good roll whereas driver B was not so lucky.
You can pretty much say that, if you drive while drunk, your punishment will be in the range of not getting caught at all, to getting a drunk driving ticket, to getting a manslaughter charge. So it's your gamble to drive drunk. Bad luck sucks, but you knew the consequences when you made the decision.
26_Charlie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:18:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actions are as serious as their consequences, maybe? IDK
cutelilmoth ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:30:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think about this a lot. Itโs kinda weird, my dad almost hit a guy once while I was in the car with him while he wasnโt paying attention. Thank god nothing happened, but the timing always scared me, like what if we left a few minutes earlier? Would we have even encountered him?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:09:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Both of them are equally morally wrong - but the degree to which both of them deserves punishment is different.
This is because punishment is only partially based on moral wrongness- the other half of it is outcome/severity of the results.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:54:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They're both just as bad as each other. Don't drink and drive.
WM_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:45:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is what I think pretty much every time I start driving. If I get killed in traffic might not happen if I'd have left one moment earlier or later.
BoozeoisPig ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:16:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An extension of this is the implications of there being no libertarian free will. If we exist in a universe in which all occurrence is the result of physical laws, which it seems to be, then all things that happen or don't happen involving people are based entirely on moral luck. If you are born a phychopath, then you are merely the unlucky result of brain chemistry that causes you to display psychopathic tendency. If you are born a very empathetic person, you are merely the lucky result of brain chemistry that causes you to display agreeable tendencies.
I am a consequentialist. I would actually say that it is ridiculous to conclude, in a philosophically precise manor, that any person is intrinsically evil. The only things that are intrinsically evil are consequences, and everything that necessitates those consequences is extrinsically evil. In order to reduce bad consiquences, it is probably necessary to punish people who both do things that result in bad consiquences or severely increase the likelihood of resulting in bad consiquences. Punishments should accomplish 1 or more of the following to be justified: Incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and should accomplish them to a degree that more harm is spared than caused by the act of punishment. I suspect that such punishments do not fulfil our thirst for vengeance in many of these cases, but I think that society must take a general social responsibility to get over our thirst for vengeance. The one that causes us to want to hurt people more than is useful for society, just so that we can feel satisfied with their suffering. This is a very toxic form of sadism that, like all forms of sadism, needs to be quelled and not entertained, unless all parties involved agree to it, both the punisher and the punished.
Deadmeat553 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:04:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Let's say we have four people.
The best and the worst people are fairly apparent here. 1 made the best choices and had the best outcome, while 4 made the worst choices and had the worst outcome. The grey zone is with person 2 and person 3. The former made the best choices, but had the worst outcome, while the latter made the worst choices, but had the best outcome.
Let's say each person can be given 0-10 years in prison. How do we decide how much time each person gets?
Let's say that person 1 gets "a" years, and person 4 gets "b" years. How much time do we give to person 2 and person 3? Should they each have "0.5*b" years because they both had 1/2 of possible things go wrong? Should person 3 have more or less time than person 2?
Say that you're the final decider in this. What makes you so certain in your decisions?
tvsocialite ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:29:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reminds me of Run Lola Run. How her timing - while running - creates so many alternate realities for herself and every one she crosses paths with.
Forgetful________ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:28:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, imo that's why natural is so important and human laws are so ineffective.
In a world that is unpredictable, constantly changing and is arguably acting on its own principles we have laws that are inflexible, predictable, narrow and, often, like in the example above, seemingly unjust.
I believe that the world balances itself out and that common sense Should play a greater role in law, rather than sticking to inflexible, unnatural rules.
With that said, I don't pretend that people cant be held accountable for their actions by others.
I'm just not sure our system best represents what life is and our place in it.
MizukiAyu ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:27:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't this what the movie Crash was about? At least that's what I remember and I watched it in high school and our fucked me up. Less and the morality, but just the 'if I left just 5 minutes earlier this crash woulda been me'
Oshojabe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:50:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm a consequentialist, so I resolve that by making a distinction between good/bad and praise/blameworthy. A is the only one who did something bad (something with negative consequences), but both A and B behaved in a blameworthy (something likely to have negative consequences) fashion.
It's also useful for odd cases, like saving the life of a drowning boy who goes on a killing spree later that day. Saving a drowning boy is always praiseworthy, but in that particular case doing so was a morally wrong thing (albeit one the rescuer could never have anticipated.)
MoreHaste_LessSpeed ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:45:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So in your world, it's OK to have an affair as long as your partner doesn't find out?!
Oshojabe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:57:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Technically, yes. But having an affair is always blameworthy (and thus not recommended) because of the emotional fallout if you do get discovered.
It's sort of like the old thought experiment about all your friends and family being paid actors who are pretending to like you. That's terrible in theory, but if you never find out then you just live a pleasant life surrounded by people who "love" you - indistinguishable from the real thing. I don't think it would actually be possible to keep such a secret forever, but if you somehow did then because the "victim" didn't suffer, the consequences were good so the action was good (so long as the actors weren't wracked by enough guilt to turn things around into a net negative, of course.)
MoreHaste_LessSpeed ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:58:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it not rather unfair to base your moral judgements (good/bad, "morally wrong" lifesaving) on things that are outside the control of the person that you're judging rather than on their decisions based on possible/likely outcomes of their actions?
A person having an affair likes to believe that their partner won't find out, but I think it's very rare that that goes undiscovered permanently, and any existing problems in a relationship are likely to be exacerbated by them investing their time and energy on a third party. Anyway, my point is that "what they don't know won't hurt them" is self-deception and that their actions will bring about the end of the existing relationship in a deceitful betrayal rather than either working at being better for each other or an honest and open parting of the ways.
You clearly used the words "good/bad" and "morally wrong" for consequences (which fits with your description as a consequentialist) but what level of moral value do you attach to the probable/possible outcomes of an action ("blameworthy/praiseworthy")?
In your world view is there nothing inherently bad about deception?
Oshojabe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:32:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The only thing that is inherently bad is suffering. Deception acquires "bad-ness" in proportion to the suffering that it causes. Lying to save someone's life isn't (usually) bad, lying to spare someone's feelings isn't (usually) bad, etc.
I'm curious about that. It's not a primary source, but a small amount of digging turned up this article which claims that 83% of male cheaters, and 95% of female cheaters report getting away with their affairs - while this article says that 30% of women and 46% of men knew about their partner's infidelity. So it seems like in the majority of cases cheaters do get away with it.
I do agree with the broad stroke of your points though - I don't think cheating is healthy for a relationship, I think it's reasonably likely to result in a bad outcome (i.e. it's blameworthy), and I think people are better served being open and honest and openly leaving if that's what's best for that relationship.
I think knowing which actions are blame/praiseworthy is a useful heuristic for choosing an action when you don't have time to do a deep analysis of all the possible outcomes of your action. We obviously can't know everything, so knowing the general tendencies of actions is the best we can do sometimes.
MoreHaste_LessSpeed ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:15:01 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm afraid I doubt your statistics, particularly the very high ones for non-detection which are sourced from a website offering services to help people cheat. Not only do I doubt their motives and their statistical methods but I doubt that they have access to a representative sample of cheaters who have been cheating more than a small amount of time, since only people starting out on cheating would use their website. People who've been having an affair for some time wouldn't need it any more. Couple that with my assertion that you're likely to get found out in the end, not that you get found out particularly soon, and you find that these disreputable stats don't do a lot of counterargument.
Anyway, you didn't answer my question about the level of moral value. "useful heuristic" isn't a moral value, it's a pragmatic value.
I'll try again: Are distinctions between possible/probable outcomes more important, equally important or less important than actual consequences in determining the morality of a given choice, in your view?
To put it in a context: Who was morally worse: the person who drove at 60mph in a residential street mid-afternoon in school holidays and didn't cause any damage, or the person who drove down the street at 25mph three minutes later whose nearside wheel broke a child's leg that ran out immediately in front of them?
Bob_A_Ganoosh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:34:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
B is worse. The poor decisions of A and B had the same potential for catastrophe. One of them realized that potential. The other did not.
Couldntpicagoodone13 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:48:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's very interesting because I've had this principle in my mind before and couldn't explain to others what I was trying to say. Basically the result of something doesn't necessarily determine right or wrong. They're both equally wrong in my opinion and the death is a tragedy and B is guilty but that doesn't make him worse than A by any means because his intent wasn't to kill a kid.
Portarossa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:51:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The problem comes when you flip it around, and start to look at when people do good things as a result of being in the right place at the right time (which is just another example of moral luck).
What are your thoughts on this, for example?
Couldntpicagoodone13 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:59:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think in both cases the punishment or adoration should only be for one of the two. But only because that's the only practical way to enforce it (I know that's kind of going against the whole philosophy premise but still). I feel A and B are both equally wrong and C and D are both equally brave. My issue with the C and D scenario is that we're asking why shouldn't D get the adoration of C, but in the A and B scenario we weren't asking whether B should be punished the same as A but whether A is ethically wrong as well, which are two very different arguments. Hopefully that kind of made sense.
237anakog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:15:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well of course, there are different favors to determine how the alcohol affects each person. HOWEVER, assuming that A and B are EXACTLY the same, they are both equal. The only difference is how the world views B as a โbadโ person, consequently making them view A as a โgoodโ person, as they are blind to Aโs similar actions.
manchegoo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:19:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is why attempted murder should carry the same punishment as murder. I mean how does it change the act if the victim either does or doesnโt die in the hospital? The same act occurred. How can what happens in a different place change the gravity of the original act?
misterbondpt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:21:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Societies of humans (and other animals supposedly) create ways to compensate losses or damages to the society as a whole. Sometimes the ways to cope are very twisted and unjust, but it all comes down to allowing all to forget.
JoeManJump ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:22:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was like "this is easy obviously it-no wait cause that's out of their co-but B kill-but he didn't mea-A didn-but he made the same choice"
Colley619 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:17:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ehh, itโs kinda like a risk thing. You drive drunk but donโt kill a kid, youโre a piece of shit anyway and get told โyou could have killed a kid and ruined your life.โ You drive drunk and DO kill the kid, well.. you killed the kid and ruined your life. Both are shitty but the one who kills the kid gets in more trouble because it finally happened, which makes sense to me.
You canโt punish everyone equally when one of the punishments is for killing a kid.
To answer the question directly, neither are ethically worse. Both are shitty but the one who killed the kid just took the risk and fucked himself over.
Portarossa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:22:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So what about this case?
Colley619 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:08:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why would any of them be responsible at all? It was an accident and was not breaking the law or putting anyone in any danger. Drinking and driving is something something having no regard for others lives. Boxing is a normal thing that they all agreed to and were not recklessly putting others in harms way.
Nobody would be responsible in this situation, just a shitty thing that happened. Thatโs like inviting your friend over to dinner him having a heart attack after a very unhealthy meal.
Letโs use another example. What if you got really mad at someone and beat their ass on the steet. They fall and hit their head and die. You are responsible for this because you recklessly put their life in danger and took the risk of him dying, which makes this manslaughter. If you beat his ass but didnโt kill him, itโs just assault, which is less of a charge. In this case, you too the risk of killing him but didnโt kill him. Youโre still just as much of an asshole for assaulting someone in the street.
CallMeAladdin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:22:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
After watching the video, it seems clear to me that we should then blame a drunk driver who gets lucky as if he committed the most offending act as a result of driving drunk. So, all drunk drivers should be blamed as though they killed someone regardless of whether they did or not. It goes against what my intuition tells me, but I honestly believe that's the most fair.
billiam0202 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:28:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're suggesting that what a person intends to do and what a person actually does should hold equal weight. I didn't pick the winning numbers for the lottery, but I intended to, so the lottery commission should just give me the jackpot, right?
JargonR3D ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:56:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have a sorta philosophy where, if you didn't intend to do it, you don't deserve the credit.
lkelly23 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:01:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Idgi. In the first scenario both are equally immoral. In the second neither are immoral. Am I missing something?
Raethnir ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:04:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
With the cars: A and B are equally guilty. They both set out with intent to potentially harm others.
With the boxers: no boxers are guilty. It's a freak accident. Tripping and falling at the wrong angle could have set the aneurysm off just as easily.
noplusnoequalsno ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:09:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here are a few beginner friendly resources on moral luck for anyone who wants to learn more.
_pure_supercool ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:33:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think this one is any question at all. They've both made horrible decisions and are equally as guilty for breaking the law and putting other people in potential danger; however, B just became a statistic to add to those who've killed while drink driving. A, on the other hand, is just as guilty for driving drunk, but this time he got lucky. Next time, if there is a next time, he could be not so much. The difference is that B did, in fact, kill someone as a result of the same decision A made. A should feel just as guilty for putting a potentially deadly situation out on the road, despite not having hit anyone.
jeremeezystreet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:38:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everybody who chooses to be a boxer and gets anywhere with it is making a choice to take the risks involved in order to achieve their goals. You're not morally culpable for hurting a person in a mutual agreement that ordinarily leads to significantly less death. If X knew Z had an aneurysm waiting to happen he'd probably have massive doubts.
LockmanCapulet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:05:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Once autopsy confirms that Z died of an aneurysm, which no one could have known about, I would readily say no one is at fault. It was an accident. If I were in X's shoes, I would doubtlessly feel guilty about it, but as a third party I wouldn't blame X in the slightest.
To me, the drunk driver question is a much trickier moral conundrum.
CalvinsCuriosity ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:18:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Holy shit, ive been struggling with this "thought pattern" my entire life and I didn't even know it had a term.
Magisidae ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:26:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In this case I think the best option is to use Kant's imperative. Is it wrong if everyone drunk and drove, regardless of killing someone? Is it wrong if everyone pursued proffessional boxing, regardless of killing someone.
I think most people would agree that drinking and driving is morally wrong but pursuing boxing is not. So driver A would be morally wrong while boxer W would not. In the same way boxer X cannot be held accountable for bad luck and driver B can.
There's also the issue of whether you could have prevented it without knowing of it in advance. Boxer X most likely adhered to all safety procedures related to boxing while driver B clearly did not adhere to all safety procedures of driving. Therefore driver B intentionally did something that increased the chances of something going wrong, which makes him accountable.
Saxon2060 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:36:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your questions are really well written up but to me the answers are pretty obvious (but then, someone who totally disagrees with me may also find the answers obvious, I guess that's what philosophy is all about...)
But with the boxers, it's no one's fault. No one is more culpable than anyone else. A pursuit entered in to with total consent on both sides basically absolves either of responsibility for moral luck. That seems like the long and short of it.
Obviously the boxer that threw the punch may feel really bad but, to me, they shouldn't. It's nobody's 'fault'.
-DrPineapple- ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:36:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Both guys knew that driving drunk was a risk. They are both equally bad because that decided to put the lives of others at risk.
The boxer is not culpable at all because it was an occupational risk. People drop dead sometimes, it's not like they can predict when.
UnpredictedArrival ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:50:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I got downvoted for trying to explain this a while back where there was a video of a drunk driver nearly (luckily) hitting a mother and pram. You put it much better.
hunty91 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:04:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is your classic example of deontological versus consequentialist ethics.
JumpingSacks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:05:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see the two as different issues really. In the first one B is culpable for the death of the child but A is equally as ethically wrong.
The boxer scenario however there is no culpability. Z chose to fight and got unlucky. X wasn't at fault nor would W or Y had they been the thrower of the punch.
How any of the characters or relatives feel about it will probably be different but from an outsider perspective on the situation this is how I see it.
genegerbread ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:12:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I guess this is something that happened whenever my grandparents visited. Back in 2014, we finally disconnected from their toxic relationship, and itโs also when I learned that they were abusive towards my mom.
Every single time they visited, my grandfather would step in dog shit. He would just manage to have it on the bottom of his shoe by the time he walked into the house. Also, the toilet clogged every time they came to our house until they left. Then it would unclog.
Thereโs also the time that when they came up our driveway, they backed into a tree and it fell on their car.
And letโs not forget the time my grandfather got into the argument with my mom about how โforteโ is pronounced. He got fucking pissed when she tried to explain the pronunciation.
caro_line_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:25:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I found Chidi from the Good Place
OHH_HE_HURT_HIM ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:54:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your two scenarios are wildly different.
Scenario A I would argue that both drivers are as bad as each other. They both carried out actions that obviously put others at risk. Those others have no say in the matter and are unable to defend themselves. The drivers may not intend to kill someone however they are obviously on some level ok with the risk they cause to others.
Scenario B. Id argue X should not feel morally culpable. His actions did result in a death however he took appropriate precautions with a willing participant. Unforeseen factors changed the outcome.
W is not morally culpable because there is nothing inherently wrong with carrying out a risky activity with a willing and fully informed participant.
The fact that the injured party in one scenario is fully aware of the risks and is not forced to partake changes the situation in my opinion.
I'd like to see more examples if im missing the point of this though
Acaedus ยท 1161 points ยท Posted at 18:30:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, I have this axe. It's been passed down to me from my grandfather. Overtime, the blade of the axe is chipped, and needed replacing, so I replace it. Time passes, and now the handle is worn out, so I replace that, until eventually, the whole axe has every parts replaced.
Is this axe still the same axe that my grandfather has given to me?
Ship of Theseus / Grandfather's axe paradox
I came across this in a game, where an android has replaced every single parts of his body, except for his broken leg. He refuses to replace it, because it's his only remaining original part. When you ask him why, he asks you if he replaces it, is he even the same 'person' he was? Or is he now somebody different
immanoel ยท 562 points ยท Posted at 22:47:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whenever this question comes up, I am always reminded of this
johnrich88 ยท 135 points ยท Posted at 02:33:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's addressed by the second part of the ship of Theseus. If you take the part that's being replaced and build a second ship, such that all of the original parts, and design, are on this second ship, is it "the ship of Theseus" or is the first ship that's had all its parts replaced?
[deleted] ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 04:32:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
AKA the Star Trek Transporter problem.
CarmelaMachiato ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 08:39:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
AKA John Dies at The End.
nhnolan ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:11:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My personal favorite book.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:33:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reading that right now! About 120 pages in.
CarmelaMachiato ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:04:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Spoiler alert...John dies at the end. (Iโm sorry, sometimes I just canโt help myself)
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:21:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bastard!
Thesaurii ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:33:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To nerd out here pointlessly, nope.
Its true that the carbon molecules on the ship and the carbon molecules on Someplanet IV are just as good, and it makes sense to scan you, tear you to shreds, and reimplement you somewhere else. There is a lot of Sci-Fi where thats what the teleporter does, clones you elsewhere and kills you here.
However, not in Star Trek, which explicitly does NOT tear you apart. The carbon of your body, the oxygen in your lungs, the bits of corn in your colon from lunch, its all moved in a thin line elsewhere, but its the exact same bits.
There are of course individual episodes which seem to support kill/clone technology, but there are individual episodes of star trek that support anything, the show is pretty weird sometimes, you have to either accept that its contradictory or heavily head canon.
Most of us pick one, that what we see on screen is an interpretation and not a perfect retelling, or that the characters misinterpret what is really happening despite seeming really confident. I like the second group because its more fun, and the most common fan theory on the kill/clone transporter episodes is that the transporter sometimes brings in people from alternate universes, which we explicitly know happens sometimes because of the Mirror Universe.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:18:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't it, though? It converts you into an energy pattern and then reconfigures you back into your previous state, on the other side. To me, that seems fundamentally the same as tearing you apart atom by atom. Any difference is semantic quibbling.
As you say, it's the same atoms, as opposed to copies, which is how it works in other sci-fi properties. But it still involves tearing you apart atom by atom, which for me is where the problem comes in.
There's nothing special about the atoms in your body that make you you. What makes you you is the arrangement of those atoms in that particular configuration. So what does it matter if it's the same atoms, or different atoms?
Well, we know that if we use different atoms to create a clone of you, that wouldn't be you. That would just be a copy of you. This, presumably, is what leads people to believe that it's necessary to use the same atoms.
But I'm not convinced of that.
I think the real problem is continuity of consciousness. And it's a problem regardless of whether you're talking about reconfiguring the subject using the same atoms, or a different set of atoms.
Thesaurii ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:24:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You aren't so much being torn apart as you are being moved, as energy, somewhere else.
The truth is that this idea is very silly, and if there were a teleporter, it would be a clone/kill set-up, any other method would be pretty silly - as you say, the atoms don't actually matter.. However, the idea of a soul is one that is present in Star Trek, which contains a lot more fantasy than most people like to think. Conciousness, souls, energy patterns, its all treated as this special magic thing in, and this essence being moved is an integral part of the teleporters function. It is made explicit that they are moving your actual form, in all parts, elsewhere.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:41:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't see how it's possible to convert someone into an energy pattern without deconstructing them atomically. But let's just say that it is somehow possible. The problem is still continuity of consciousness. Unless that continuity of consciousness is somehow maintained while you're holding in an energy pattern (because it's not always instant, we've seen how it's possible for these energy patterns to be stored as data for an indefinite amount of time), then the problem is still there.
But to me this seems no different from hand-wavey woo woo, saying that it just works because it just works.
I can accept that it just works within the fictional confines of the show, but when we talk about the philosophical ramifications of the transporter problem, we're discussing whether it would be realistically possible in our world.
Thesaurii ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:49:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't see how its possible for a Vulcan mind meld to function (or any of the very common telepathy), particularly light years apart.
It is woo woo, but its an established, factual kind in that fictional universe. You aren't wrong about the general transport problem, but its not Star Treks, which solves the problem by saying "it doesn't, because".
AussieWorker ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:10:14 on April 20, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd like to see the transporter as 'reading' you and then using uncertainty principle to 'observe' that you are in a different location - using a colossal amount of energy to DO that perhaps. but it neither tears you down or copies you. you just ARE in another location.
However, the continuity of consciousness is a big one. But if it bugs you at all, do NOT think about when you go to sleep and wake up. it will ruin your life.
HawkeyeSucks ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 11:22:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Presumably all the parts have been replaced for a reason, rendering this new creation 'the imminent shipwreck of Theseus'. Subsequently, there will again be only one ship.
TastyBrainMeats ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:07:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wouldn't they both be?
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:31:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree with this.
If you were to create a clone of me, it wouldn't be me. It would be a copy of me.
Even if I were to die in the cloning process, and I no longer existed afterward, it still wouldn't be me. It would still just be a copy.
10Dante4 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 07:34:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel that this is slightly different, as with buildings, ships or axes they are merely trying to preserve something of value that exists, hence replacing sails/handles/roof/materials in general.
If we copy you, we aren't trying to preserve you. We just copy you. If we were to transplant you a new liver or kidney, that would be more similar to this philosophical theme I guess.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:38:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In the classic way that the problem is presented, the parts that make up the whole are replaced individually, over time.
But in the example Adams gives, the entire building burns to the ground, and is then rebuilt from scratch. So it is much more like a copy.
10Dante4 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:43:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see, this is more complex than I thought.
psyspoop ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:39:22 on April 16, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not very sure if this is a valid point, but it seems that there are maybe a couple things that distinguish the situation of copying the building from copying a human. One, the building is designed and built by humans. This means that the value/essence of that building isn't defined by the materials it's built with, but by the humans who designed and/or value it. If you rebuild a new building that's identical, it can still serve the same purpose the old one did. Humans are not designed and built in this way.
Humans also have consciousness to throw a wrench into this all. Even if you make a copy of me, will that copy have my exact same consciousness? If not, then the physical copy is not quite the same nor will it have the exact same purpose or value. If it does have the exact same consciousness, then what the fuck, do I get to experience two realities at once?
Hopefully this wasn't too far off the point or really dumb.
TastyBrainMeats ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:09:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does a perfect copy matter less than the original? I would argue "no".
If you were instantaneously, perfectly duplicated, and I hand you a gun and ask you to shoot the copy in the head - would you not be committing murder? The copy has all your history, all your memories, all your loves and foibles, your hopes and dreams.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:25:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's really beside the point.
I would say, yes, the copy is a human with all the same legal rights and liberties that the original has.
Yes, he has all your memories, all your loves and hates and hopes and dreams.
But none of that makes him you, which is the point. If your clone committed a murder, it would not be fair to charge you with the crime.
TastyBrainMeats ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:37:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fair. You should not be held culpable for your clone's actions, I totally agree.
So which one of you gets your house? Which one should your husband stay with? What about your job?
Then, what if I tell you that you are the copy? You were assembled instantly ten minutes ago, with a copy of a whole life's memories.
Then, say I can prove it - I ask you what color a beloved childhood toy is, you confidently answer red, and I show you it's blue - that was one memory they edited just as proof.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:59:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are you, and your clone is not you. So the house, the job, the spouse, ethically these all belong to whichever version acquired them, whichever they originally belonged to, whether that's the original or the copy.
That is the case whether we know who is the copy and who isn't.
But again, to me, these questions seem irrelevant to the point I was originally making, which was about consciousness. The clone has its own distinct consciousness, it's not merely you in a separate body.
TastyBrainMeats ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:08:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I think I may have misunderstood your original point, then.
AussieWorker ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:10:38 on April 20, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like this. Thankyou
PetalDoggo ยท 213 points ยท Posted at 19:04:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My answer to this is no. Transferring files is essentially creating an identical copy, then deleting the original. Even having your consciousness would essentially be a digital clone that is just like you. So it's an Identical Copy, but not the same.
Just_an_AMA_noob ยท 316 points ยท Posted at 19:31:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It becomes more interesting when you consider the fact that every single atom in our body has already been replaced at least once. We might literally not be the same person as our 5 year old self.
farm_ecology ยท 54 points ยท Posted at 21:22:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This isn't actually true. Many atoms in your brain are likely the same since birth.
Just_an_AMA_noob ยท 60 points ยท Posted at 22:11:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Many of the neurons remain from birth, but the atoms that make up the cell do eventually get replaced. There was a study conducted where they stopped the cells from being able to perform maintenance duties and they began to atrophy very quickly.
The brain uses around 40% of the bodies total energy. That energy is stored in the form of molecules. Where do you think they go?
farm_ecology ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 22:45:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dont see the relevance?
I think you've confused me saying "many" with "every".
Thanks to carbon isoltope analysis, it seems that carbon atoms in the DNA of our neurons are likely the same carbon atoms since birth. Which makes sense when you think about it.
Just_an_AMA_noob ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 23:01:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You got me then. I concede the point to you. This was simply what the textbook told me, but even in undergraduate they still oversimplify things.
[deleted] ยท -73 points ยท Posted at 00:47:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Get your head out of school. This isn't a game and there are no points. Your opinion has been changed and your point has been conveyed.
swimfast58 ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 03:30:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What the fuck?
frosthowler ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 07:48:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because you seem to be confused, the man was just conceding the argument to him. By point, he was not referring to score, but rather his point, his argument. The same point as in "what's your point".
I agree that I've never seen "concede the point" used like that, and rather it's usually something akin to "concede the argument" or just "concede", but there's no need to be a dick even if he referred to a figurative scoreboard.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:53:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:55:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm just tossing stones into the lake trying to make them skip. Some sink. Also I'm pretty bad at it. Perhaps my stones are too heavy or not flat enough.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:42:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do you have a link to that study?
ikindalold ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 23:01:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
People are like PS2's
They think they're the console when they're actually the memory card
MintyTruffle ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:09:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Neurons remain the same. Which is even more interesting because it raises the question, what if our neurons replaced themselves, too?
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:53:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or if someone replaces you kitchen table with an exact copy of it, but you dont know. For all intents and purposes it is the same in your world.
Its because sameness and differentness are abstract labels we put on things in our mind.
Jaspeey ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:49:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If we're more than the sum of our parts, we could still be the same person
come_with_raz ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:14:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think self/consciousness has more to do with information processing and integration, and in particular yourself processing yourself. The medium it runs on only need to be stable enough for the process to continue, and it can as atoms are swapped out.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:10:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not the same person I was when I first typed this comment
SweatpantsDV ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:06:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, I mean, 5 year old me was a bit smaller than I am
TheBlonkh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:09:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, I'm certainly not the person I was 5 years ago, so that makes a lot of sense to me
ElectroPositive ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:34:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also I would hope that, for the most part, people look different as adults than they did as 5 year old children.
TastyBrainMeats ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:10:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are less matter than we are pattern.
farm_ecology ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:28:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a different problem.
The ship of Theseus is actually used as a potential way of avoiding the copying problem.
If you replaced each cell with an artificial one, one by one, you are theoretically part original and part new.
If you imagine consciousness as being an emergent property of at least part of the brain: the chain of subjextive experience isn't stopped and thus potentially you've transferred yourself.
sh1ps ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:05:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I recently read a pretty good sci-fi novel that covered something along these lines. It's called We Are Legion (We Are Bob). It's a little silly, but I found it really interesting how the author talks about the results of consciousness replication.
martixy ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:24:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And what defines sameness?
How can you tell one electron from another? Answer: You can't.
BreadOfLoafer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:21:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a big part of the concept of cloning that i can't get people to understand. Like in san junipero(black mirror episode) they aren't transferring the conciousness of people to a digital landscape, they are just creating a new copy of them. The old person still exists and will die like normal, not all of a sudden open their eyes and see the what the digital version sees.
How I best explain it is that you could clone someone(or their mind) and create a clone while they are still alive. Now would you be seeing what your clone is seeing? No, because you are two seperate things that exist exclusivley, so you would keep seeimg whatever your original self sees. This could have been cool to explore but they didn't do that unfortunatley.
Sage2050 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:22:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In San Juniper the people who are trying it out have their memories of San Junipero in the real world though. In that universe they are legitimately transferring consciousness.
salbris ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:10:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well that might be how it's done in Black Mirror but that doesn't hold up practically. Those neurons aren't transferred the patterns are copied and replicated in software.
BreadOfLoafer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:53:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You could do that with a (near instant) data transfer back to the brain when they wake up, implying you can rewrite brain cells/ neurons as well as transfer them
Sage2050 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:55:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean it's a work of fiction, it can just be what it looks like on the surface
robots914 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:03:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You could keep your consciousness the same, though, by transferring the brain bit by bit and allowing signals to continue travelling between the uploaded brain and the original.
ducksdogs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:09:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This reminds me of a discussion about fucking with a tiny copy of Hitler
PetalDoggo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:47:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
r/nocontext
ducksdogs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:27:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here's the context: https://youtu.be/cMt9E85geUI
Meximanny2424 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:34:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So the real question of the paradox is actually if itโs not the original, at what point does it become the new copy
Freevoulous ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:12:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this idea falls apart, when you realise that "original" is not a quality that exist in nature, just in language. Originality is just a human concept not an inherent quality of matter.
Aeturnus_Victor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:01:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not physically the same axe, but it holds the same sentimental value as if it was still the original. If you transfer a file, the original is gone, but it is still the same.
Spicy_Pak ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:00:04 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What ties you to the original versus the copy? Sentimental value is to some extent transferable, and intrinsic origin is arbitrary. I'd say a perfect clone is the same thing.
EpicestGamer ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:02:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's the same with teleportation, but I don't know how conscienceness works, and it's always bothered me.
QuantumValkyr ยท 64 points ยท Posted at 22:28:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ahhh... NieR Automata and existensialism, try find a better duo i'll wait
AmadeusMop ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 03:14:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Undertale and ethics.
PureSmoulder ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 05:11:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doki Doki Literature Club and crippling depression
probablynotben ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:39:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Uncle Iroh and unconditional love
obscureferences ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 02:55:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Last of Us and the value of humanity.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:34:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That game really fucked with me
TastyBrainMeats ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:10:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Good Place and the nature of goodness and evil.
AnfrageUndNachgebot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:22:14 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Rainbow Six Siege and Rage
SamusAyran ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:25:42 on April 16, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Rainbow Six Siege and hitboxes. Oh wait, Got that the wrong way around.
ChevyChaseIsNice ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 21:30:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I hope this makes some kind of sense. I just replied to someone else regarding Plato's theory of form, this is me expanding on that theme and thinking it through as I type it haha
You could argue that it is, as it embodies the original "Form of your grandfather's axe". Maybe it is an even more improved version of your grandfathers axe, striving towards ideal "axeness". Although as soon as he gave it to you, you can no longer call it your Grandfathers axe, it is now Acadus's axe. As Acadus's axe, it experiences a whole new existence that your grandfather is unaware of. So maybe it's not the new parts that make it "Not your grandfathers axe" but its new found experience.
Now with a person, although your cells are replaced every x amount of years, you still possess the same essence, the same experience of experiencing. This essence endures an amazing amount of changes (hopefully) biologically, experientially, ethically, etc. You could argue that through life you are falling from or striving towards an ideal perfect version of you.
With the axe, its falling apart and degradation would be its falling away from ideal axeness and it's improvements and add ons would represent its movement towards ideal "axeness" but it would not prevent it from being the same axe. Although maybe perfect axeness is achieved when it loses its individual differences thus becoming indistinguishable from perfect axness.
Someone, please tear me apart
OnTheTwelfthDayFight ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 08:31:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
IMO any attempt to address the ship of theseus problem without consideration of Greek concepts of being is fucked. Itโs just not solvable because you donโt have the metaphysical vocabulary to describe whatโs happening, to (a) differentiate the โdifferentโ ships, and (b) describe the continuity of the โsameโ ship.
But if you have that vocabulary and accept the concepts behind it, the problem is trivial: The โship as materialโ is obviously not the same ship; the โship as formโ is always the same ship.
So, yes, itโs the same ship. And no, itโs not the same ship. You have to define what you mean when you ask โIS it the same ship?โ What do you mean by โisโ? What kind of โbeingโ are you asking about?
At which point: Welcome to 400BC, enjoy your stay, have fun spending possibly years reading about Platonic Forms and Aristotelian Causes.
ChevyChaseIsNice ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:02:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree, we MIGHT be able to say in a metaphysical sense yes it is the same and in a material sense, it is not.
Sage2050 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:24:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'll concede your point of transfer of ownership to make this point: say Acadus keeps all the old parts and one day assembles them into a new ship... er axe. Which axe is the original?
ChevyChaseIsNice ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:07:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue Acadus's improved ship... I mean axe. Consider this, if someone took all your nail clippings and skin particles and atoms and so forth and compiled them into another person, would your essence/conscious experience suddenly teleport to the old compiled body? It's almost like a snake shedding his skin. It seems there would be nothing to animate the old body and maybe that axe would be so defective that you could hardly call it an axe, maybe it fell so far from it's ideal that it lost all "axeness".
EarlyEscaper ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:58:03 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah you good, theory works.
Real question is whether the "idealised form" changes over time/according to our experience with said axe, and by extension do we change too due to our further interactions with the axe?
6_023x1023 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 22:43:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also knows as Trigger's broom theory.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DBUl6PooveJE&ved=0ahUKEwiD9_XD47DaAhWaF8AKHbmNCyEQt9IBCFUwCQ&usg=AOvVaw3JYOMaPZ4jE-Ak-YytoVt1
NuclearLugeIsntSport ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:07:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Alright Dave.
BadgerCourtJudge ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:16:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If it's a girl they're calling it Sigourney after an actress, and if it's a boy they're naming him Rodney after Dave!
snek4prez ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 22:02:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know that game, that game fucked me up real good
Acaedus ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:00:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right? So good!
DOG-ZILLA ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 21:48:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would say yes. In living creatures anyway.
If you lose your arm then add another, in time that arm โbecomesโ a part of you. You do not become part of that arm.
The arm adapts, learns and is melded into being you. In time, there is no difference between the nee arm and the one you used to have.
immmm_at_work ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 21:05:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By the same token, are you even you? Your cells die, you shed/excrete them in some way or another, and then your DNA with the help of proteins and amino acids make new cells that compose "you". What are you?
theyellowmeteor ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:11:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are an ensemble of continuous processes, a function, if you will. That way change can be accounted for. Another interesting question is: Since you are constantly exchanging elements with your surroundings, where does the border between you and the rest of the world lie?
immmm_at_work ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:20:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's hard for me to tell anymore...Thanks, LSD!
In the same vein, do you think consciousness is the result of a massive amount of logical next steps? I thought about this when I was tripping once. The only way that I can have thoughts is after a shit ton of "if___ then___"s like object permanence and language. This is how computers work, yes?
theyellowmeteor ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:02:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have no idea. It seems to make sense; after all, the entire universe seems to be just that. Then again... why aren't we just automatons that follow some sort of programming? When we touch a hot iron, why do we feel pain? Why don't we just automatically remove our hand from the hot iron, unaware of the whole thing? Why are we aware at all? And how can awareness come out of a bunch of elements that don't exhibit this quality? How do they interact with each other for awareness to be possible? Again, I have no idea.
Cowsezcwak ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:12:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I read this in Michaelโs voice from Vsauce and the wording makes it uncannily believable that he wrote this himself
souleater8764 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:48:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I fucking love neir automata dude, thatโs shit hits hard
tiedupanddown ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:04:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Legendary British grindcore band Napalm Death have been around and actively releasing new material (their last few albums are fucking awesome too, fwiw) since the early 1980s.
There are no original members remaining in the band.
a_little_toaster ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:57:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
which game was that?
Acaedus ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:58:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nier: Automata
acuaticyasTRADING ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:09:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hey... Can I axe you a question?
UltimateSecretary ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:17:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Came here to read interesting comments only to be very happy that someone made a Nier Automata reference!
tom__stockton ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:57:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Came here to say this one. In my head its also known as the Sugababes problem. A British Pop group whoโs members left one by one and then formed a group, with each other... So who are the Sugababes?? Its a perfect example of the Ship of Theseus and I love it.
SLAYERone1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:41:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Triggers broom its a classic
necropants ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:18:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean straight down to the point it is not the same axe. Who cares though? That is the question, the universe doesn't care about the axe but you do. The axe still has a history that connects to your grandfather and that history is probably more important than the actual item itself.
angstypsychiatrist ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:39:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's like the tamest thing about the game too
TobyMuffin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:56:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wall-E
JackATac ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:00:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We arent at all the same person we were half our lifetime ago.
pielord599 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:17:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue that that isn't the only original part of him. His consciousness is the deciding thing. If he completely replaces his body, he is still "him," because his consciousness is in a new body. His body parts are part of "him," but if they are removed they are no longer. For living beings, the thing that makes a person a person is their mind, not the body parts that make them up.
olive1112 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:35:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What game?
shakazulut ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:24:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is more a question of how we categorize things. If we look at axe heads and handles as the thing rather than the part of the thing then nothing changes.
RabidFlamingo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:36:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doctor Who talks about this as well, which is a given since the main character can turn into a different person to cheat death, right down to the brain (which affects their personality to a degree).
In the end, I think the Doctor decided it was their memories, core beliefs and core personality traits that made them who they were, even if everything else changed. "Same software, different case."
Sage2050 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:19:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Came in for this one, definitely my favorite
Master_Salen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:53:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ironically, I consider this to be more of a linguistic puzzle than a philosophical one. I thrives on the fact that โsameโ is an ambiguous identifier that needs to be clarified. Consider the statement โSarah and I watched the same movie.โ Now consider the statement with different modifiers. โSarah and I watched the same movie together.โ โSarah and I watched the same movie apart.โ The former same equates cinematic viewings while the later equates compares cinematical content.
Now, letโs add modifiers to the Ship of Theseus. โIs the ship the same material?โ โIs the ship the same structure?โ โIs the ship the same legal entity?โ These questions are substantially easier to answer. The difficulty arises when we fail to clarify what modifier is appropriate to use when evaluating the question โis it the same ship?โ
zachpledger ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:00:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Furthermore, if the axe/ship/androidโs old parts were all salvaged to make a new one, is THAT the same axe/ship/android as the original?
keeleon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:17:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To me the axe is the blade. So replacing the blade replaces the axe. The ship is a much better example of that.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:51:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The answer depends on what you consider the same. Does replacing something over time mean it's the same thing to you? May seem like I'm being a smart ass, but my point is, something being the same or different is just an abstract label we put on something. It is something that exist in our minds alone. It all depends on your perspectives and beliefs.
TheloniousPhunk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:47:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't understand why this is even a paradox? The answer is no, it's not the same axe once every bit has been replaced.
If you have some of the old axe in there, you can theoretically call it the old axe that has just been repaired. Or you can call it a new one with memories of the old. That part is up for debate.
But once you replace every part, no; it's not part of the original axe that you started with.
Madking321 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:50:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
On a physical level i'd say it's not the same axe, but the concept and name of the object persist. The name you call your grandfather's axe is not the name of the axe itself but the concept of it or what it represents, if that makes sense.
This paradox really becomes complicated when you look at the mind.
If i replace parts of my brain on a cellular level(This is important to take into account) until it's physically not what it was - am i the same person? I would say yes, when people call me by my name they're not referring to my face nor my brain, they're referring to my mind; so as long as my mind is persistently intact i will remain who i was.
But what if you're replacing larger sections, like the frontal lobe or brain stem? Would you be the same person then? I'd say, it depends. As long your memories have not been touched and as long as the replacement parts fulfill the exact same role that your brain did with the exact same structure - possibly down to a cellular level - then you should be the same person.
But as you're replacing your whole brain chunk by chunk i'd say it's safe to assume your memories will eventually be copied-andpasted, meaning you would no longer be the same person.(Unless of course there's a way to transfer memories somehow without just copying them)
Hopefully, my viewpoint sounds coherent, i'm not at all good at formulating my thoughts.
EXTRAVAGANT_COMMENT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:05:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
if the answer is "obviously no because it changed over time" then think about how all the cells in your body continuously deteriorate, die and are replaced. in a matter of months, you are like the axe, made of entirely new parts.
ARsurfer19 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:06:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Obviously it is not the same axe, what is the big mystery? Same with the ship, you can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't mean anything.
AmbassadorEstha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:46:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Similar paradox is presented in Ghost in The Shell.
SchoolboyBlue ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:46:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait but - our cells are constantly dying and replacing themselves until the extent we start aging.
We are Ship of Theseus persons..
wordsworths_bitch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:14:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the real question is why the fuck are you using the axe of out matters that much to you.
qner ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:23:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't that happen with the human body also? Over time every cell dies and gets replaced. Even if the building blocks are different now, the overall structure yields the "same" person
Caliber199 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:30:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reminded me of John Dies At The End. "Say you have an ax - just a cheap one from Home Depot. On one bitter winter day, you use said ax to behead a man. Donโt worry - the manโs already dead. Maybe you should worry, โcause youโre the one who shot him. Heโd been a big, twitchy guy with veined skin stretched over swollen biceps, tattoo of a swastika on his tongue. And youโre chopping off his head because even with eight bullet holes in him, youโre pretty sure heโs about to spring back to his feet and eat the look of terror right off your face.
On the last swing, the handle splinters. You now have a broken ax. So you go to the hardware store, explaining away the dark reddish stains on the handle as barbeque sauce. The repaired ax sits undisturbed in your house until the next spring when one rainy morning, a strange creature appears in your kitchen. So you grab your trusty ax and chop the thing into several pieces. On the last blow, however - Of course, a chipped head means yet another trip to the hardware store.
As soon as you get home with your newly headed ax, thoughโฆ You meet the reanimated body of the guy you beheaded last year, only heโs got a new head stitched on with what looks like plastic weed-trimmer line and wears that unique expression of youโre-the-man-who-killed-me-last-winter resentment that one so rarely encounters in everyday life. So you brandish your ax. โThatโs the ax that slayed me,โ he rasps.
Is he right?โ
NSA_Chatbot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:33:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is why kings and queens say "we".
There's only been one King / Queen of England. Canada has only had one Prime Minister. The United States has only had one President.
Sure, the meatbag taking the post will wear out, but the position does not end.
mullerjones ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:46:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Although I love this idea as a philosophical question, I feel it has a rather simple answer from a more practical standpoint, which is what happens with objects that are subjected to this possibility in the real world.
That solution most commonly is to define one specific, usually indivisible part of the object to be the one you canโt replace. For example, if Iโm not mistaken, with guns you have one specific piece of it that has a serial number on it (and is the only piece you canโt buy easily). For ships, itโs the hull. For cars, itโs the frame.
Some of those are large enough that they could be, for example, cut in half and rebuilt, but then the part where the serial number is written is the important one.
It doesnโt answer the underlying question, but it does provide a solution we can use to get on with things in real life.
soulreaverdan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:24:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My favorite paradox and my favorite video game :D
(Go NieR!)
LockmanCapulet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:12:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm the same person even though the cells in my body have grown and died and been replaced. (well, most of them; IIRC brain cells are weird in that department).
If I open a game on my computer and sit still in it, so that the image i see being rendered does not change from my perspective, I'm seeing a newly-rendered but visually identical frame twelve to thirty times per second. Heck, i'm constantly receiving a new set of photons projected from my screen into my eyes.
I think it's all about how we define meaning and identification of things/people/ourselves.
batsofburden ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:48:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's a new axe but with the addition of the memories of the old axe in all those who know the story, so it's not just a random axe but still not the original.
Typhoonjig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:58:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For living being it's easy : yes, we're still the same entity even if al our body changes, it does it naturaly during all our life as we age. Each part is replaced permanently so no real problem here.
sokratesz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:14:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Friend always called my bicycle a ship of Theseus because of how long I've had it and how many parts I've replaced over the years.
Freevoulous ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:10:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Interestingly, your body also does the same thing constantly. You are not the same person you used to be.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:29:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This becomes strangely more personal when you consider that after several years, the majority of your cells would have been replaced with new ones. A youtuber called EpicNameBro brought this up in one of his Nier Automata playthroughs
cronin98 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:37:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I compare it to the fact that eventually all of our cells die off and we grow new ones that live one. The new cells keep up alive and are influenced by the existing cells. We develop into better humans as we live on, but ultimately I'm not the same person as I was 20 years ago. My history is there, but 7 year old me who loved cartoons and candy is only similar to me now. The difference is the ship's mechanics are much quicker at remaking it than nature works on a human body.
OHH_HE_HURT_HIM ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:56:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this reminds of a joke from Only Fools and Horses.
A cleaner is talking about how he has had this same brush through out his career.
Had 17 new handles and 10 new heads, loves the thing.
GangreneDream ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:25:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ahh Triggers Broom!
OneMillionRoses ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:23:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No it's not the same axe anymore. Same goes for the android unless they managed to keep the same mind stored somewhere.
KevansMcGurgen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:40:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you want to be incredibly objective, the axe is no longer the same axe as soon as you replace any part.
sean9217 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:45:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
lol I read this and all I could think about was Trigger's Broom from Only Fools and Horses (classic UK Comedy)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUl6PooveJE (SFW dont worry lol)
isit_naptime ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just take my upvote for that Nier Automata reference
Smashgunner ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:39:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In my eyes, yes. Think of it this way, 7 years from now I will have an entirely different body. But people will still associate the name "Smashgunner" with me. it's the same as the axe. it may be an entirely different body now. but it is still 'grandpa's axe' because that's what it is to you. and what you will tell others that it is.
AeyGaming ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:27:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember hearing that we replace all the atoms within our own body every decade or so. Not sure how true it is though
Nohea56789 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:39:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nier automata is a game full of philosophical Crap I love it. Also he's a good shopkeep
hearinghands ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:49:17 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, if you replace even one part, would it still be the same? I have had part of a bone replaced with cadaver bone and I like to think about this. Am I the same?
cobthememegod ยท 1028 points ยท Posted at 16:49:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No matter what you do you will be plagued by regret. For example:โ if you marry, you will regret it, but if you donโt , you will regret that tooโ (canโt remember who the quote is from)
strikethreeistaken ยท 567 points ยท Posted at 20:36:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Live for what you have, not for what you could have had.
Aesop_Rocks ยท 75 points ยท Posted at 00:23:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Likewise, if you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with
[deleted] ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 09:54:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow that's horrible advice. You shouldn't force yourself to stay with someone you don't love. That's a recipe for an unhappy relationship and the other person will know something is wrong on your end and it will only make them miserable as well.
Aesop_Rocks ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:51:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow it's actually a super famous song lyric and there's much more to the song. You're right and the lyric at face value is probably wrong, but the song has a good message.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:52:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sorry I don't know that song lyrics. I thought you were just trying to give advice
Aesop_Rocks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:01:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://youtu.be/HH3ruuml-R4
Couple of ways I interpret the song. First, if you can't be with a particular person, then you're alone and should learn to love the one you're with (yourself!). The other is that if you can't find your version of an ideal lover, you might want to take a look around and see what kind of people are actually in your life. Stop being so idealistic or you'll end up alone!
Plenty of other ways to interpret it, but that's what I've gotten out if it over the years.
Skintoodeep ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:47:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn.
Arcanehavok ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 09:10:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
super great in theory but you can't force "love" and lust, it's conditional and even then conditions usually don't last forever.
Aesop_Rocks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:50:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's actually a super famous song lyric and there's much more to the song.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:42:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the building Foundation of the stoic philosophy
DOG-ZILLA ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 21:51:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This hits deep.
strikethreeistaken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:55:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is advice that I just gave my son because he was feeling some regrets. He just joined the Army and sent a message to me that he regrets not taking deeper advantage of what I was offering him before he joined the Army. He felt like he wasted his time and failed to appreciate the opportunities that were available to him. I told him all of life will be like that and that he should appreciate what he has now and find the opportunities within what is available. The sentence above is a condensation of a much larger message.
AlbinoWitchHunter ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:47:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do what you regret the least in that moment
steve20009 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:17:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I love this one, as I'm dealing with that in my life right now. I often wonder how great my life would've been by now had four years ago I didn't make one wrong choice. I'm alive, healthy, but not financially where I want to be and it's killing me daily. I often wonder if said bad decision is making my life better/worse than me living with constant regret.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:26:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Life is not about the pursuit of prosperity, but the development of the soul."
strikethreeistaken ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:08:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Stop comparing yourself to where you are now from where you could have been. That is part of regret. You are where you are. Reorient your point of view until it matches where you are and then do your best from there.
If you stop regretting that "one bad choice", then you will not be killed daily. Life is filled with bad choices, all you can do is move forward. Every awesome experience that happens to you from now until eternity would not have happened if you had not made that bad choice.
In other words, the only REALLY bad choice is to choose not to keep going.
batsofburden ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:49:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's literally impossible to know.
seergod ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bruhhh
Sir_Troglodyte ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:39:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is exactly what I have learned from my dog.
theyellowmeteor ยท 77 points ยท Posted at 22:13:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's from Soren Kierkegaard.
TheHardWalker ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 07:36:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm so sorry to be that guy, but he's one of the few intellectually famous people from my country, so I'll defend the proper spelling of his name till I die/decide not to be on Reddit and actually get some work done.
It's Sรธren Kierkegaard. The 'รธ' is pronounced pretty much the same way as the 'ea' sound in 'Earl'. Also the two a's in his last name substitutes the letter 'รฅ', which kind of sounds like the 'a' in 'awesome'.
Again, I'm so sorry, but I couldn't help myself. Hopefully you can name drop him in a proper pretentious way at the next party ;-)
theyellowmeteor ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 08:11:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks. TIL
Brickie78 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 08:56:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And if my short experience of Denmark is anything to go by, you also swallow the n in Sรธren and the d in Kierkegaard, ending up with something like "Surre kierker-gore"
TheHardWalker ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:00:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, Sรธren is pretty much the same way as you would say it (except the 'r' is the German 'r' in the back of the throat. The 'n' remains. The 'd' is silent though, but it ends right there and doesn't drag out like in 'gore'.
But you did get a lot out of a short experience with Denmark!
Brickie78 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:41:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I speak German, so can make a bit of a guess reading Danish but quickly realised that the spoken version sounds very different.
I think it hit me when I realised that the sign saying Hรธvedbanegรฅrden and the announcement saying hurrborgor were the same thing.
Lovely place though. We hired a car and spent a few days staying in Jelling and just pootling around Jylland. Reminded me a lot of Suffolk here in England.
MintyTruffle ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 00:12:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is a man? A miserable pile of regret.
I know the quote is incorrect. I changed it because I like it this way better.
DarkwaterVale ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:27:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sรธren Kierkegaard
He was a sad dude. Often considered the father of Existentialism.
eclantantfille ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:50:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, I love Sรธren. Poor guy, broke up with the love of his life because he thought she didn't deserve to deal with his depression too
epicblob ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 05:33:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
me irl
Mahxiac ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:49:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A man who married late in life.
retselvlys ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:24:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs Sรธren Kierkegaard
1337coder ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 22:46:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm experiencing this right now. If I don't ask out this girl to her face, I'll regret it forever. If I do ask her and she turns me down, I'll also heavily regret that. Lose-lose.
kilgorecandide ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 00:18:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are three possibilities here: either you don't ask, you ask and she says yes, or you ask and she says no.
Two of those three possibilities are almost certain to cause you regret. One might not! Give yourself a chance at that one.
LiftMeSenpai ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:20:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or the third alternative, she says yes, only for OP to find out she's bat-shit crazy
kilgorecandide ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:38:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
LOL I thought of that - that's why I said one MIGHT not.
JumpingCactus ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:32:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But if she says yes, do you believe you'll regret it?
SethRogen-Not ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:32:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Trust me, you will only regret not asking. If she rejects you, youโll at least have an answer that will hurt, but you will grow from.
fakewastakenn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:49:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same..
RetaliatoryAnticipat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:08:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But if you're turned down you'll likely regret it for less than "forever".
derdowaggy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:30:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I took an economics class and the only thing that stuck with me is the concept of opportunity cost. Basically, when you choose to buy something (or get married in this case), you not only pay for that product, but you also pay for the lost opportunity to have bought any other product (other marriages or not getting married).
Excusemytootie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:33:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isnโt this a circular concept? It has to go both ways.
derdowaggy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:38:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well yeah. Like if youโve got a dollar and you want a candy bar and a soda. Either way the cost is one dollar and the missed opportunity of the other item. It just really makes you think about your decisions. Snacks. Cars. Marriage.
sunburntredneck ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:44:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looking behind you equals all of twenty equal parts of one
xcelleration ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:01:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reminds me of the game life is strange. The main character can unwind time to redo her decisions, but no matter what she picks she will regret or doubt something.
Ton777 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:18:14 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is that a tv show or movie? Sounds interesting
xcelleration ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:59:10 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a game
RetiSetGo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:15:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't that just "grass is always greener"?
And I don't think it's really true. I decided a minute ago not to jump inside a volcano, I'm not "plagued by regret". There are often objective pros and cons to choices. You might not make a perfect choice, because such a thing doesn't really exist, but you can certainly make a better one.
RipeMonk ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:26:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but life is all about regret minimization (through these pessimistic lens). You have a great deal of influence to control the degree of your regret.
bepseh ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:06:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Vagina.
superzepto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:03:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't regret quitting crystal meth.
OtakuMecha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:56:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Basically just โThe grass is always greener on the other sideโ
thablastronaut ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:59:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Soren Kierkegaard
Dantalion_Delacroix ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:11:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oddly, the paradox of choice comes from this. If you are given a thing, you will usually be happier with it than if you had been given a choice between that thing or something else. If you have to choose you will always wonder โwhat ifโ. If itโs forced upon you, youโll just enjoy it for what it is
majesticshit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:09:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Kinda freeing when you think about it. Just except that certain choices lead to regret. If you can accept it as a natural part of experiencing life, like growing pains, and then just move on.
aridamus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:09:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is just a simple act of perception and for that reason is not always true. As someone else said, this is the basic foundation of stoicism.
Brickie78 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:04:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've just been playing a rather lovely little indie PC game called "Finding Paradise" where you play a pair of scientists who go into peoples' memories as they die to implant memories of that thing they always wanted to do, or "fix" regrets.
It's more a mildly interactive story than a game, but it's rather interesting. And funny, in a meta kind of way.
monsto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:12:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Never regret anything you do, never do anything you regret.
"Seemed like the thing to do at the time" is the mantra of the forward looker.
dekker87 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:23:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that's called 'opportunity cost'
Mastahamma ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:41:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every choice you make closes off an infinite amount of alternate paths
iwantdiscipline ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:12:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is there a theory behind this because I havenโt read about this be do I experience this. My philosophy is that as long as your intentions are honorable, you do the best you can (integrity), there is no need to feel regret when shit goes wrong.
imregrettingthis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:09:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The inverse of that is that you don't need to regret anything.
GetOutTheWayBanana ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:17:29 on April 14, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree. I have very rarely regretted actions that I have done, while I have often regretted things I have not done (and thus think about what might have been). Even if doing something ended in a stupid or embarrassing outcome, I can remember my thought process when I decided to take the action, and I know that if I transported back in time Iโd still do it again. The regret is not the same as the โwell, Iโll never know what mightโve happenedโ, and it balances out with all the times I took action and it had a good, positive result.
JargonR3D ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:10:23 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Guess I'll die.
Eleo4756 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:18:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Life without regret, it's not worth living." Unknown
Frankoburger091 ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 00:56:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is Freudโs concept of Super-Ego. His whole theory of the mind will fuck with you, especially if youโre one of those people who likes to think of themselves as โweirdโ
runnerdan ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 03:53:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
F that! I got married and she's got dem' titties! Dilly Dilly!
Dn503 ยท 204 points ยท Posted at 23:30:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely the six degrees of separation
โSix degrees of separation is the theory that any person on the planet can be connected to any other person on the planet through a chain of acquaintances that has no more than five intermediaries.โ
TLDR: The idea that you know anyone in the world through six people
AlllRkSpN ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 07:49:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure เธญเธดเธเธเธดเธฃเธฒ from a Thai mountain village is way more separated from Adebowale from Morocco's ceramic factory.
Mastahamma ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 11:21:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thai guy -> Man who registered his name in a book -> Man who works in the civilian registry department and does a bit of traveling -> man who does a lot of traveling and has been to Morocco and met people there -> guy who runs a popular community club in Morocco -> Moroccan ceramics factory worker
Think about how many people you know, and consider that a large portion of these people know more people than you do.
I can probably say that I know over approx 400 people, and as it goes, a large number of these people will know even more, and a good number of them are people who travel a lot.
Art-Is-Change ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:13:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
doesnt the very fact that you've name them together in a sentence make them connected?
AlllRkSpN ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 08:18:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not acquainted with any of them, they don't even know I exist.
SBorealis ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 03:56:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We really are all brothers and sisters
IAMSNORTFACED ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 11:14:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
-pornhub
SBorealis ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 16:26:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Recommended for you"
themagicchicken ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:40:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Roll Tide.
is_u_serious ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:24:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But what constitutes an acquaintance? Can I say that the CEO of the company I work for, who I've met once, knows the president of the US, who knows the Pope?
GhostReckon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:17:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. Basically anyone you've ever met.
is_u_serious ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:19:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not so exciting then. Of course anyone could easily get to anyone else.
DanTheStripe ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 07:33:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Kevin Bacon Number is a good example of this.
ZeePirate ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:09:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Uncontacted tribes pf the amazon, i bet i dont know any of those guys
scardeyccat_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:02:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's kind of depressing is how basically it's reliant on anchors of people. So only I may know 50 people,but one of those people is a socialite who knows 250+ people.
browser2345 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:43:28 on August 24, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
so if someone knows at least 44 people who also know the same number of people ( assuming this number doesn't contain each other and doesn't contain any person on the lists of my acquaintances) (mutually exclusive) power this by 6 and you can get 7.2 Billion. its pretty possible(( if your acquaintances have friends from a wide range of backgrounds/ someone diverse enough to increase the average to 44 per link)) am i right?
nlfo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:39:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only when it's Kevin Bacon.
Nyx124 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:10:55 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What about the Sentinelese people? Theyโre apparently the most isolated people on Earth, and no one has ever โmetโ them.
rockbo47 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:36:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Mr Bacon? Is that you?
Typhoonjig ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 10:19:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right no ? If I want to speak to my mother, I can ask my brother to ask the mayor to ask the prefet to ask the president to ask Mark Zuckerberg to ask his staff to message her so she moves the fuck out of facebook and come to eat the diner before it's cold.
Captain_Hampockets ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:10:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What?
GhostReckon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:21:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just because you are linked to everyone in the world doesn't mean you can contact anyone with at least 6 people. It's impossible to know every single person combined even one of your acquaintances knows.
MrDudeGuyPerson ยท 363 points ยท Posted at 19:04:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Solipsism. The idea that you (or in this case I) are the only conscious thing and everything else is just good at imitating living things.
theyellowmeteor ยท 119 points ยท Posted at 22:20:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As a corollary to that, if I die, that's the end of the world.
MrDudeGuyPerson ยท 63 points ยท Posted at 00:35:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"This may be your show, but this is my episode."
freakinidiotatwork ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 13:02:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I had a discussion with someone once about suicide. They said they'd never do it because their friends and family would be devastated. I told them I wouldn't care because I'd be dead.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:24:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
r/deathprotips
LeanderT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:45:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hmm, please don't die?
dragonthemagicpuff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:52:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're all just figments of my imagination, you can quit pretending now.
AussieWorker ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:47:18 on April 20, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My life and the world goes on, no matter who else in it dies.
sgtpeppies ยท 46 points ยท Posted at 02:50:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ehh, you're not quite right with the definition there. Solipsism is an epistemological position where the self is the only thing you can be sure exists. It doesn't inherently mean you BELIEVE everyone is fake, you just can't ever be really sure, which is true.
DuplexFields ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 04:07:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I prefer to consider metafictional solipsism; it feels like less of a circlejerk. Both Deadpool and Pinkie Pie have fourth-wall abilities, but in-universe, they're just crazy or wacky, respectively. Without the author's consent, neither can prove they're in a fictional universe.
MrDudeGuyPerson ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:23:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, that's kinda what I meant. I'm just terrible at explaining stuff , lol.
dookie_shoos ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 03:57:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone on Reddit is a bot except for you.
GeekyMeerkat ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 20:42:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is it called if someone (that is to say I) have the idea that you (that is to say you) are the only conscious thing and everything else (including me) is just good at imitating living things?
MrDudeGuyPerson ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:17:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well this turned into a mindfuck instantly.
I have no idea but I would look up something along the lines of 'Anti Solipsism'. Hope that helps somewhat.
DuplexFields ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 04:03:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Third-person solipsism: "You're a character in his dream."
Third-person metafiction: "You're a character in a WritingPrompt response that only got two upvotes and no replies."
MacSchluffen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:35:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This third-person metafiction would explain a lot.
sgtpeppies ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:52:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is just a linguistic non-issue lmao. "I think, therefore I am" is the basis of philosophy so I can't not "exist" just by the definition of the word "exist" in philosophy. Like if this is all just a simulation, I still existed as a program or whatever.
Based-God- ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 00:46:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that sounds a bit like a mental illness
gavmo ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 03:09:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is a mental condition where you basically are convinced that everyone is just an exact copy of the people you know, if that makes sense
redeyesredbull ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:47:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This fucked me up as a kid I fully believed this (still lowkey do) and got so scared and lonely it eventually led into derealization disorder :)))) But, it also calms me down in public because I know the people around me canโt be real because I donโt feel their feelings or live as them and Iโm the only one I experience so nothing matters.
losark ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:58:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it getting a bit solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
DNK_Infinity ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:47:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As a frequenter of /r/debateanatheist, I've learned a great deal of disdain for this idea; it's a philosophical non-starter.
nlfo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:27:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if there is only one soul that gets to experience everything from everyone's perspective, one life at a time.
PresToES ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:10:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here is a story on exactly what you described.changed my life. http://highexistence.com/images/view/the-egg-by-andy-weir/
JeyJeyFrocks_3325 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:44:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone one reddit is a bot except you?
thewickedgoat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:00:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Perception is reality. If you stop perceiving reality, does it seize to exist?
Reddidiot20XX ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:16:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
On Reddit, everyone is a bot except you.
Jolmer24 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:33:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think therefore I am.
LeftHandBandito_ ยท 1208 points ยท Posted at 18:30:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wish there were more questions like this on r/AskReddit
thegillenator ยท 1080 points ยท Posted at 00:04:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Le female specimens of reddit, what was the sexiest sex you ever sexed?
meep_meep_creep ยท 481 points ยท Posted at 00:26:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
People of Reddit who do something I personally don't like, why do you do this thing?
gamedemon24 ยท 116 points ยท Posted at 03:04:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's something you were told when you were young that you later found out was totally false?
FlagAssault ยท 87 points ยท Posted at 03:34:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
People that used to be [something negative] why did you change?
Then all the correct responses relevant get downvoted
CSmiht ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 05:19:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you could see all the statistics of your life, which one would you be most interested in?
individual_throwaway ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 11:02:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How would you try to win [large amount of money], observing [weirdly specific stipulation]?
Pop_Dop ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 05:19:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's the best thing someone could spend $100 on?
Jeffoir ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 06:46:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What something that people aged [my age] can do now that will be super helpful in the future?
ElectroPositive ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:36:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If someone offered you a large sum of money, what would you be willing to endure to win said money?
connorblikre ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 05:58:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
People who murder orphans, what was the turning point in your life where you said "I think I'll start murdering some orphans now"?
BoyishDragon ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 05:59:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
People of Reddit who make poopy on the potty, why do you do this?
monsto ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 09:11:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Cops of reddit, how many stupids?
cdiganon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:36:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What would a <their age> year old do to get the best outcome when in <their situation>
ZeePirate ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:46:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not an actual person here, but...
4waySLI ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:28:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
r/circlejerk
JargonR3D ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 03:59:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Le sexiest sex I have ever sexed was with your mum cuz ur mum gae.
Megafeto ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:10:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
nice.
ElderMaxi-Pad ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:31:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not a female but...
Eshmam14 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:28:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Obligatory not a female specimen but..
ToedPlays ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:45:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
M'lady...
ElizzyViolet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:52:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
am GRIL did very sexiest
pixar-bound ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 05:47:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or recently, this trend of โwhatโs something ALL men/women have experienced?โ And my first thought is always โway to immediately exclude trans and non binary peopleโ
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 06:45:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Be the change you want to see, make that "what's something ALL non binary people have experienced" thread.
SJ_Shark_Byte ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 11:09:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Cuz thereโs only two genders nerd
mac19thecook ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:45:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You will get downvoted but you are correct
BlooFlea ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 01:30:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You dont like popular unpopular opinions and fap threads?
Calmecac ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 06:39:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is the not written rule of Reddit? What is your WTF moment? The last thing you touched is your weapon against zombies, how fucked up you are?
TQLY ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 06:56:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm kind of glad there isn't, because there would be so many saturated answers and reposts. Since these posts come rarely, the responses are fresh and new, but I totally understand where you're coming from.
DrBoon_forgot_his_pw ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:56:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Question that exacerbates gender bias? Why do your genitals define you?
batsofburden ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 07:50:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ask away.
dangerCrushHazard ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:12:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think youโll find a home at /r/trueAskReddit
yeahdefinitelynot ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:56:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you don't do this already, jump in the new or rising section every now and then and comment on those so they're more likely to pop up on the frontpage!
sugnaz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:03:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Be the change you want to see in the world.
TheWorldEndsWithCake ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:56:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wish there were too, and that these threads had more unique posts. I've seen a couple new things, but there are plenty of answers that are unrelated to the question, have been posted thousands of times before, or both.
DarkSoulsDarius ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:00:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are like bots(or maybe even real people) that sometimes copy and paste answers when someone reposts a similar question. I said this as a statement, but I'm not entirely sure what the hell it is, but I do know it happens because I've seen the exact same reply to threads that had similar questions that I've seen in the past and just confused the fuck out of why someone would steal someone else's story. The answer is karma, but HOW did they find that answer so quickly and know to repost it? It just messes with me a bit cause it seems intentional and not for straight up karma related reasons.
And I'm not talking about "what's are obvious red flags" "rude to waiter", I'm talking copied stories from other people.
TheBlonkh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:10:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Be the change you want to see in this world
pharaffs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:49:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, no, which youtube channels should I binge on!
SmartAlec105 ยท 1978 points ยท Posted at 16:04:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The idea that the color that I see with my sight might not be the same color as the one you see with your sight. Of course we both recognize an object as the same color because we were both taught the same name for that color we see. Another way to think is โwhat if someone else saw the opposite color on the color wheel rather than the real colorโ. Theyโd still call red red but their mind would see green.
EDIT: Spelling and clarification.
JaxBanana ยท 994 points ยท Posted at 21:25:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i genuinely thought i had come to this independently, and thought it was a really interesting topic, until i heard someone on a podcast use it as an example of fake deep stoner talk.
i had to reevaluate my life
SmartAlec105 ยท 402 points ยท Posted at 21:28:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ignore that podcast. John Locke also thought about this stuff and he probably didn't even have access to weed at that time.
JaxBanana ยท 334 points ยท Posted at 21:33:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ahh john locke,
survivalist, philosopher, leader, smoke monster.
campex ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 01:26:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just don't tell him what he can't do...
TrebeksUpperLIp ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:48:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How come when he put the orange in his mouth to make Walt laugh he didn't die? Isn't that Coppola's signature foreshadow! Come on Damon Lindelof, figure it out!
campex ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:52:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe it was to throw off the cinephiles looking for those tropes.
And to be fair, he did die eventually....
TrebeksUpperLIp ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:58:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True true, but doesn't errybody?
GerbilJibberJabber ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:36:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
WELL, HE CERTAINLY CAN'T GIVE ME 15 LBS OF HASH!!!
1stOnRt1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:03:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait, He was the smoke monster?!
How did that happen?
I turned Lost off the moment that they said the line "We have to move the island" and never turned it back on.
JaxBanana ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:26:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
spoiler
locke dies and the evil deity (jacobs counterpart) inhabits his body. after that he can turn into the smoke monster. at least i think thatโs what happened. iโve watched 3 times and still have no clue
1stOnRt1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:32:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think thats on the DVD box set
JaxBanana ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:35:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
itโs definitely the official tag line.
i even watched the damn annotated episodes they did in the later seasons.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:46:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually weed was everywhere at the time. In the form of hemp.
SmartAlec105 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:48:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I just based that comment on a 30 second wikipedia search so I was expecting to be wrong on that.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:52:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dont really know how popular smoking it was, but it was definitely around.
Percala ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:01:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Weed has been around longer than humans. Im sure most philosophers had access to the good stuff. Lol
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:55:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but it hasnโt been spread around the entire world as long as humans.
PointyOintment ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 22:49:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every redditor thinks they came up with the idea of qualia themselves.
QWERTYMurdocII ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:21:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but at the time my dad said it was silly.
It's quite interested that a lot of people independently come up with such a weird concept
SmartAlec105 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:56:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whatโs also weird are the things that someone could have come up with hundreds of years earlier but just didnโt. Like stirrups werenโt something that required any huge infrastructure but it made mounted combat so much more effective.
bricktamland48 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 01:03:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you came to it independently and think it's interesting, that makes it interesting. Other people don't get to decide what's interesting to you.
AMA_About_Rampart ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:40:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if he decided that other people get to decide what's interesting to him? Also, that's absolutely how a lot of people's minds work. We see what others find interesting and follow suit.. We're pack animals to our very core, and that comes with the territory. So saying that's not how it works seems disingenuous.
Couldntpicagoodone13 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:04:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol same here. I tried to explain it to my wife and she thought I was crazy but I was serious. Glad to see it's a legit thing. I mean it makes perfect sense, there's literally no way to know.
Surfing_Ninjas ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:48:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think this is a thought that many people come to on their own, and you shouldn't feel bad about that cause there's plenty of people who will go their whole life having never pondered it. It's also not a dumb thing to think about, or "fake deep stoner talk" because, from my point of view, it is a simple thought that can open your mind to many new ideas. It's what caused me too look into a lot more of stuff like this.
IKROWNI ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:04:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ha that's funny I thought I was the only person that thought about colors that way. I try to explain it to other people and they just look at me like I'm nuts. But then again I do live in Florida.
AMA_About_Rampart ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:37:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's always disheartening when you hear your deepest and most insightful thoughts come out the mouths of stoners.
sibears99 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:59:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Me too till I read this thread
knight-rao ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:12:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Me too :/
ItsaMeHibob24 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:39:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What podcast? The exact same thing happened to me.
JaxBanana ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:01:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
maybe โstuff you should knowโ i think it was chuck who said it? and theyโre usually on the level so i didnโt take offense
aa24577 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:57:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How is it "fake deep"?
Caststarman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:53:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought I was so cool for thinking I came up with that in 6th grade. Turns out it's pretty common
suffer-cait ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:54:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember having the same realization at like 7 or 8. I think many of us have come to this one independently.
ThetaOmega ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:45:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do you have a link to that podcast?
JaxBanana ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:57:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
unfortunately not the exact episode. iโm almost positive it was an episode of Stuff You Should Know but iirc it was just an aside in an episode on an unrelated topic.
ThetaOmega ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:02:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks. Itโs been awhile since Iโve listen to their podcasts, but I still have the app on my phone. I guess I have an excuse to open up that app again.
darknemesis25 ยท 158 points ยท Posted at 21:22:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What crosses my mind often is how unbelievably fucked up our human world is in terms of color. Our white light isnt actually white. Its red green and blue. Completely arbitrary on a universal standpoint.
Imagine we go to an alien world and whenever they're indoors, they shine pure bright purple, orange and brown EVERYWHERE.. their video screens are just completley unrecognizable coloured shapes and hues...
Animals and our pets must really find it disconcerting
evilution382 ยท 49 points ยท Posted at 22:18:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp
SmartAlec105 ยท 87 points ยท Posted at 21:24:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, imagine if we gained the ability to see another primary color that's outside of our current range. Suddenly, two things that we used to call white are now different colors because one of them now has another color.
weres_youre_rhombus ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 01:33:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No. Youโre just high. Wavelengths. Spectrum. Itโs math. There are wavelengths outside of our range, yes, but not colours.
Many insects can see infrared. Apparently birds might be able to see magnetic fields. See, that shit is real and mind blowing.
SmartAlec105 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 01:43:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know what you mean. If we had the ability to see infrared, then the things we formerly called white would be divided into "things that contain all the light that we can now see" and "things that contain all the light we can now see except infrared".
It's like if we only had Red and Green cones and so we called the light that contained all other visible light Yellow. But then we got the ability to see Blue light as well. So now we need to differentiate between Yellow and White.
findingemotive ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 05:40:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think what he means is that there aren't secret colours out there, we can already measure the possibilities with instruments. Like people with a fourth cone don't see new colours, they just have a greater selection of hues.
Runixo ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:34:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Which would still be mindblowing for a person who has only ever had three before. It's gotta at least be like colourblind people when they first wear those special glasses.
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:57:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
People with a 4th cone have that coneโs peak response within the cones we already have. So itโs not able to tell us about the presence of light that we were otherwise blind to. It just makes it easier to differentiate between light that we could already see.
bluesam3 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:26:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting choice of colours, given that neither purple nor brown light exists.
SpoicheyMeatball ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:26:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What do you mean our white light isn't white? If you're referring to white light on a computer screen disllayed through rgb output you'd be correct. But white light by definition is light made up of all the different wavelengths of light, i.e. not just RGB. There are many sources of actual white light on earth as well as any other colour on the visible spectrum. Including "purple, orange and brown"
PvtTimHall ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:35:43 on April 14, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
White light doesn't really have to be made up of a spectrum of visible-length photons. Any sufficiently bright source will appear white because the human perception of "white light" is just a high number of activated photoreceptors. But human photoreceptors do have wavelengths of maximum absorbance in the red, blue, and green regions I believe.
CallMeAladdin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:35:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're really limiting yourself by sticking to the tiny range of the light spectrum that we can actually observe. You don't even have to go to an alien planet. The Mantis Shrimp has 12 color receptors. That's 9 more than humans. Imagine a color you can't even imagine. Now do that 9 times. That is how the Mantis Shrimp do.
putrified1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:19:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You should check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umwelt
Fits right in with what you're describing. Basically no two organisms experience reality the same way, and in fact experience it so differently that they could be said to be living in different universes.
carbonetc ยท 139 points ยท Posted at 16:59:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
David Chalmers pretty cleverly put the question of inverted qualia to rest. But there's no shortage of other problems around consciousness to solve.
SmartAlec105 ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 17:05:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can you expand on that? If not, Iโll google it later.
carbonetc ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 18:19:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here's the paper: http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html
fnord_happy ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 21:36:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is there someone who would be willing to explain this
Tayloropolis ยท 69 points ยท Posted at 22:06:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are qualias and shit, yo.
DoubleArmFractures ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 22:15:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks
Throwaway_2-1 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:19:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the best, clearest and only explanation of this paper that I have ever read. Thank you and up voted
titterbug ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 22:54:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
From skimming the thing: Imagine you could flip your brain-eye between seeing a ball as red and seeing it as green. If it's just a simple flip, your brain won't change appreciably. Therefore you won't notice anything happening, even though your experience will differ wildly. That would be silly, because red is nothing like green.
MintyTruffle ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 23:55:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't get it.
PractisingPoetry ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 01:47:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This doesn't dispute inverted qualia at all between people, only the self. Sure, if my colors slowly inverted, I would eventually notice it. That doesn't mean that somone can't be born with that switch already flipped such that the inverted colors is all he knows.
titterbug ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:46:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right. The paper is chiefly concerned with the idea that experience (and consciousness) is a developmental thing. Different experiences imply remarkably different brains - but perfectly copying a brain with software should result in machine consciousness.
carbonetc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:22:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, it does dispute it. Chalmers is arguing that functionally identical brain hardware will produce identical experience. That means if another person has different color experience, then their brain is functionally different from yours. The whole point of the inverted qualia argument is that the qualia are the only difference between the two systems. That two people with different brain hardware would experience color differently isn't any more interesting than saying "some people are colorblind" (for the sake of argument, pretend color blindness happens in the brain and not the eyes -- if we're moving off of color you could say "some people have face-blindness" or whatever).
And the thought experiment in the paper actually does perform the "brain-eye" flip by routing some of your brain processing through someone else's (silicon) brain.
Fiammiferone ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:17:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Red is a lot like green if you're colorblind
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 22:39:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How about an ELI5 version?
ZeePirate ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Explain yourself heathen?
jw2702 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 21:49:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt think it can ever be made certain that someone doesnโt see the same colour as someone else, but thereโs strong evidence to suggest that we should see the same colours. Eyes have a molecule called โrhodopsinโ which converts specific wavelengths of light into a specific electrical signal which is sent to the brain. These specific wavelengths are each of the colours we know, so thatโs the science. Vsauce did a great video on it actually.
Raszhivyk ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:34:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought they were gettong more at the fact that sinxe we haven't had experiences while building up an understanding of the concept the actual full sized idea of anything in our head represented as neuronal relations isn't the same.
Digitalapathy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:03:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Synesthesia baffles me to the same degree, our senses are perceived.
anothermuslim ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:33:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why though? Color perception varies from species to species because of anatomical differences, but if humans share the same physiology, including the mechanism for interpreting light converted to electric signals, why then would something like that vary between people?
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:40:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well there's no objectivity to different colors as far as we can tell. You can't describe a color without using other colors or things associated with the colors.
anothermuslim ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:05:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can via its physical properties such as its wavelength? Like, "blue light falls into the 400nm spectrum"? why cant we assume assume that we perceive them the same, when the process by which we interpret the color and the different components we use to do so (like our brain, eyes, nerves) do not vary from human to human? Components/processes which and can be broken down into their respective physical properties and compared?
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:14:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Eyes and nerves, sure. But consciousness is so much of a mystery right now that we canโt say that itโs the same for everyone. For example, some people actually โseeโ an image of something when they picture it in their mindโs eye while other people think itโs just an expression. Link.
Unchosen1 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:39:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โIs my red blue for you
or is my green your green too
Could it be true we see different hues
If it was true could we discover this fact
Even if we did would there be any impact
I donโt think this would affect me personally
But I think itโll have ripple effects through the interior design industryโ
OkeyDoke47 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:23:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was actually going to pose this, as I have wondered about this since I was a child. Now I feel like I am a philosophical wunderkind.
shakazulut ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:28:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Color is strange, but if you think about it as frequency it's a bit different. Why is the question never framed with sound? How do we know this sound sounds the same to you as it does to me?
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:32:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Probably because humans are better at sight than sound. If we were dogs, maybe we'd be having this conversation about sound or smell.
cszintiyl ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:25:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So every colour that I see is a pigment of my imagination?
Machattack96 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:55:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The big refutation to this Iโve thought of is the pretty consistently popular color combinations. For example, red and black is considered a really cool combination. Now obviously if my red is your green and my black is your yellow, then weโd appreciate the combination differently, since yellow and green isnโt as appealing as red and black (generally, as in itโs less popular).
Of course, we could suggest that colors are just rotated- suppose my black is your white and my red is your blue. While white and blue is a pretty popular combination, I doubt that it is of the same popularity as red and black (whether itโs more or less popular is unimportant- it isnโt exactly the same). And thatโs a โ180 rotation,โ which isnโt necessarily the case. Whoโs to say the rotation wouldnโt be more subtle- say, my black is your grey and my red is your orange. Thatโs not an awful combination, but itโs not as popular as red and black.
The fact that there are definite, specific combinations of colors that people find more appealing than others consistently is what undermines this theory to me.
So if you ask a bunch of people to rate red and black as a combination between 1 and 10 and get an average thatโs far from 5, youโd imagine that people see it the same way (if the average is near 5, however, it doesnโt mean that people necessarily all see it differently; you would just expect that if everyoneโs colors are randomly jumbled up, or even perhaps if weโre all just shifted by some rotation).
The fact that we all pretty much agree white and brown isnโt an incredible look but black and red is popular tells me that weโre all seeing the same thing.
dejoblue ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:31:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Check out color constancy(at the core of "the dress"), qualia, and colorblindness.
As far as measuring wavelengths, Magenta doesn't exist, it has no wavelength, we synthesize its "color".
Here is an article showing strawberries made of entirely, and literally, of only black and white pixels(open it with GIMP or PS and inspect for yourself, I did!), but we perceive the image as red strawberries on a plate with a blue pattern and yellow border on a wood table with multiple shades and tints of brown.
Color constancy TL;DR: When you see a dirty white car or a car parked under a canopy providing it shade; if a police officer were to ask you to describe it you would probably say it was a white car because you ignore the dirt and shade. The actual literal color would be gray, but we are able to extrapolate all other scenarios based on our experience and derive the true color being discussed.
As a colorblind person, color constancy provides me with a tremendous amount of what I perceive as color. We know strawberries are red so we use color constancy to make them appear that way. I can make grass appear red or green to myself based on this with decades experience as a deutan(green blind person) using tons of color constancy to inform my perception. Think of it like looking at the corner of a ceiling and making it appear to yourself as concave or convex at your whim.
As you can see, with all of this in mind(double dad pun!), I think there are far more interesting disparities between individual people's perception of color than figuring out if our individual perception of "red"(ff0000) is exactly the same.
Cheers!
datboyuknow ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:27:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've posted this shower thought once. No one got what I meant
Jay_Tee_G ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 18:02:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's what Pantone color codes are for (sorry, my inner graphic designer got ahead of my inner philosopher)
kylescheele ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:46:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not true. Pantones are just another way of naming colors, but they donโt do anything to ensure that you see the same thing I do.
Imagine Iโm wearing yellow-tinted glasses. We can both look at Pantone 118 and know that itโs called Pantone 118, but what you see and what I see will be very different.
Same thing is true with our eyes. I have no way of knowing whether what you call yellow is actually what I call red. I just know what we both agree to call that color.
swearinerin ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 22:20:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if we showed just a color wheel that didnโt have names and asked what color they thought was red?
If theyโre seeing yellow as red than they would pick the yellow, we would see that and pick the red. That way we would know. It wouldnโt have names so that wouldnโt influence them right?
OkeyDoke47 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:29:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But then, if I see green as red and you see yellow as red, we would still point out the one you saw as yellow and I saw as green, yet in our minds they are both ''red''. I think that makes sense? I'm not sure if I'm getting a headache right now...
swearinerin ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:32:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly but we would be point to different colors right? Iโm kind of confused myself as well but I feel like even if we both thought a color was red we would be point at 2 different colors that just so happened to be named red in our minds.
PointyOintment ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:54:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You would point to the same color. You would call that color by the same name. But you would have different subjective experiences of it.
printergumlight ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 08:05:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesnโt mixing colors and paints and the color wheel and complimentary colors disprove this all?
I need to wake up refreshed tomorrow and think on this.
Bababooey716 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:33:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, they would pick the red because their whole lives theyโve understood what theyโre seeing as yellow in their minds to be called red. You wouldnโt know the difference as a bystander.
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:26:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well you asked them to pick red so that must meant they already have a color associated with red. It's already got a name.
You can't describe a color without using other colors or things associated with that color.
swearinerin ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:30:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs true but we could see that they picked the 4th color on the color wheel which they thought was red and if we see red at the 8th color than that would show that it is different colors we see no?
Since were only trying to see if the color they see is the same as the color we see that would be able to show us no?
SmartAlec105 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:38:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're not quite getting it. We would all point to the same color when asked to point to red because we were all taught that that red is that color. That tells us nothing about what color they are actually seeing in their head when they are looking at something.
swearinerin ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:19:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But you are saying we are all seeing a different color as red right?
So if we are all seeing a different color as red we would still chose the color WE saw as red but it would be different for everyone no?
Iโm starting to confuse myself over this but in my mind it makes sense.
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:30:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Let's say that you see red as red but I see red as blue. We both look at a red apple and say that it's red. Someone shows us a color wheel and asks us to point to red and we both point to the same place.
smgavin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:25:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not exactly what they meant. If I were to modify your example, the color wheels would be rotated (as seen by different people) such that the color names would always be in the same spot even though they see different colors.
Raszhivyk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:40:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The comparison is faulty. Any given perons conception of a color isn't identical to any others, but they aren't so different as to correspond to a different color if somehow plugged into another persons brain. Coming from the same wavelength input at the start that person while sensing a difference would see it as a altered "red" not the same as some other random color like yellow.
smgavin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:01:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, I don't really agree with it myself, I was just trying to explain why that test wouldn't necessarily work.
farm_ecology ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:13:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One of the things that really brings that out is the "the dress", it really challenges what we think we perceive.
Arguably it could extend beyond colours. If we can all agree in what we are talking about whose to say everything from shapes to colours are all fantastically different, so long as they conform to the same rules
science_2 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:40:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see this posted everywhere and it's just so... dumb...
People, regardless of what colors they see, have a concept of light and dark.
That already disproves your claim. Give a group a paint swatch, and almost all of them will either agree that the color is either "light" or "dark".
Another problem is color blending. We all have a sense of colors that melt into one another, like a rainbow. Seeing random different colors would go against this, and so far nobody and has come up and said "Wait why do these colors go next to each other in a rainbow if they're complete opposite"
Also this claim is pretty ridiculous because of art. The very existence of art proves your claim is false because just putting random colors together, any skilled artist could call bullshit.
SmartAlec105 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:44:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not sure if you're understanding what I'm saying. Imagine if for one person, their color wheel has been turned around 120 degrees since they were born. They were shown the color red and taught that it was red but in their mind they see blue. But they recognize that blue as red just like how you recognize red as red. It doesn't affect the person's ability to differentiate between colors.
MashedPaturtles ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:43:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โSpinning the color wheelโ is a nonsensical statement. The color wheel doesnโt exist. Imagine human vision that extends to X-rays. What happens when you spin the color wheel then? Would you be arguing that some people โperceiveโ the color red as the ability to literally see through objects?
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:00:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well if we had a 4th primary color, then weโd probably need a color sphere to describe things rather than a wheel.
MashedPaturtles ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:40:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The color wheel is an abstraction of visible light to explain additive color mixing. It is no longer a useful abstraction beyond visible light. Trying to extend it beyond visible light is absurd, which is what my thought experiment tries to show. It organizes colors, and having it organize more than colors means you've lost its original context. It's like using the geometry of Punnett 'squares' to illustrate something about genetics: nonsensical.
The electromagnetic spectrum is a continuous gradient from long, low energy wavelengths to short, high energy wavelengths. The cones on your retina are literally labeled 'Short, Medium, and Long'. Extensions above and below our current threshold would simply mean having 'Very Short, and Very Long', etc. They don't necessarily have to contribute towards additive color mixing. The idea is to illustrate the non-arbitrariness of color as tied to the frequency of photons. There is no debate about bright vs. dark (amount of photons), treble vs. bass (frequency of sound), loud vs. quiet (amplitude of sound), yet color (frequency of photons) might be completely arbitrary?
It's an interesting idea, and I think it even could be possible in rare cases, but I see this as a physiological / biochemical question rather than a philosophical one. The usual cop-out: "the mind works in mysterious ways" is a dubious reason to believe it in the first place. All the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
science_2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:47:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I understand what you're saying. But you clearly didn't read any of my points or try to disprove them...
SmartAlec105 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:51:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My color wheel rotation example invalidates those. Itโs not random colors in that example. So the color blending and rainbow stuff does not change.the person would still say that red is at the top of the rainbow but theyโd be seeing blue.
science_2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:53:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:02:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. I donโt see how that disproves me. Letโs say the colors were a bright red and a dark red. In my example, the person would see a bright blue and a dark blue. So theyโd still be agreeing that one is brighter than the other.
science_2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:05:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the color yellow.
you have a deep purple, and a deep yellow. Regardless of tint, there's an obvious lighter color.
A deep blue, a deep red, are all still "darker" than a deep yellow.
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:16:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But is that due to the colors themselves or due to the fact that our eyes donโt see all light equally well? And how are you saying that they are at the same degree of deep? Certainly a deep yellow is darker than a bright red.
science_2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:20:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
exactly. give them two colors that have the same tint.
Also primary colors exist. If someone saw orange as a primary color and knew basic color theory, they would know that you can't mix two colors to get orange, a primary color. but you can, which means that it isn't a primary color, which means that your theory would be correct.
but nobody out of the 107 billion people that have graced this planet have ever said that a primary color could be made from two different colors : )
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:26:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In my color wheel rotation example, the primary colors are mapped to other primary colors. So secondary colors are still made of two primary colors.
BlueROFL1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:03:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought of this shit in the shower when I was like 15. Itโs blown my mind ever since and Iโve always wanted to find a way to prove it or disprove it.
PointyOintment ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:59:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So does everyone else
FoxandFangs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:17:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always thought that this were in fact the case with someone wouldn't the influencing factors of the color make it obvious that they are seeing the "wrong" one. For example how orange and brown colors entice us to eat/be hungry. Red has an influence on our sec drive ect.
Would this not work?
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:28:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But are those objectively linked with the color or are they subjectively associated with the color? Even something like the wavelength of light that causes you to see a color is subjectively associated under this theory.
FoxandFangs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:46:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, good point. I think I was trying to get around the idea that the name we learn for a color is what would mask our differences in what we see. But if then we would say blue and red are switched for someone, yet they still have all the same influences are our own blue and red would it matter that they are switched at all? If everything that makes a color a color is switched as well then it wouldn't seem to matter
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:51:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, whether it's true or not doesn't affect anything. It's just kinda neat to think about.
FoxandFangs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:57:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True, this stuff makes me miss Phil courses
DontDoxMeBro22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:27:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The real deep question is, who the hell cares? This would be one of the least significant revelations of all time.
caspershomie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:27:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i also like to think that itโs possible we all have the same color as our favorite. like every human really likes the color red but since we donโt know what other people see it could look to them what we think is green.
Simusid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:33:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have a good eye and a bad eye. The good eye does 95% of the work. I got some rust in it when I was about 20 so I had it bandaged for a few days. Eventually when it came off and I was readjusting, I realized that I clearly and repeatably see red as different shades between my own two eyes. It's subtle but with the right brightness I can easily see it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:33:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Couldnโt this be disproven with shades of colors?
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:38:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How do you mean?
ry9intheBlind ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:45:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then how come everybody knows not to write in yellow-ink pen
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:50:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's to do with our eyes to pick up on light of a certain wavelength when its surrounded by light of all other visible wavelengths. So that part is due to the eyes rather than the brain.
writetoAndrew ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:05:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This used to blow my mind until someone pointed out that you can measure color. You can show two people the same wavelength and they only call it the same thing because they've learned it that way. There's evidence that some cultures are unable to even perceive certain colors because they don't have a word to describe it. Crazy!
Triton5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:17:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And if this was the case, everyone would feel lucky that they ended up with the best color mapping
OldManJenkins420th ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:59:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hey Michael, VSauce here.
ImJustCanadian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:27:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If this was true than the entirety of the interior decoration industry would burn. Maybe there can be slight differations between the colours people see, but if not than a bunch of science papers wouldn't make any sense.
embroideredpenguin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:31:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt think this is true at all, isnโt fashion revolved around color matching?
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:39:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In this idea, the relationships between different colored light are preserved even if you change around the color that a person sees.
Prometheus_brawlstar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:34:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is very interesting to think about. But what are the chances that someone's eyes/brain got coded just slightly different DNA to make them see the exact opposite color as everyone else? I mean, the same light is going into all our eyes so it would have to be within us that makes us register something different.
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:47:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The brain has this property called plasticity which means that it can sort of be altered to suit different purposes. For example, some blind people have been found to use the visual part of their brain for sound and language. So it might be that the brain doesn't really have a built in code for understanding visual information so it just builds a code based on what it receives.
xcdesz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:39:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but color should be relative to the observer. If you see green, it is the same green as the grass, which I may see in a different way, but it is still "green".
iHadToTypeThis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:53:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
THIS. Seems I am not alone.
dust4ngel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:25:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
what does the statement "two different subjects experience this color blue in the same way" even mean?
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:44:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Imagine if when you looked at red, you saw blue. When you looked at blue, you saw yellow. When you looked at yellow you saw red. If you'd been like that since birth, then you'd never know anything was different.
theladysociety ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:27:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My boyfriend is partially colorblind.... that rocked my world to wonder how he sees his
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:44:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are apps that can simulate colorblindness. Download one and point your camera at different stuff.
theladysociety ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:48:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh no way? Ill check that out!
AustinRegehrr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:18:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have thought of the same thing as you and came to a solution.
Since we can't know if our color reds are different, we can look at shades of color. How red follows into orange, orange into yellow, yellow into green, and it makes since for those colors to flow. So if someone were to have a different color red then me, it would be off by a shade and all the other colors that are different between us, would only differ by a shade.
So it possible that someone else has the opposite color spectrum, so it would still make sense when comparing shades.
cieuxrouges ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:20:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://youtu.be/evQsOFQju08
raznarukus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:28:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same thing with all of our senses...
hopbel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:33:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I lost all interest in this one when I realized it is completely unverifiable and completely inconsequential. for all practical purposes it does not affect anything in any meaningful way.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:50:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But the way we see colour, it isn't like we see the same shades of yellow as we do blue. If someone saw blue as yellow, they'd actually be at a disadvantage - they wouldn't be able to tell apart all these shades that other people see. This is a good article that goes through it.
Aeon1508 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:44:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dont buy this one. I'm bored of the topic
jeremeezystreet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:44:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As long as it remains consistent in each persons perceptions, it doesn't have to be remotely similar across all senses.
GG2urHP ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:50:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
read about magic leap - they're changing the light spectrum that comes through the goggles so they can make adjustments that your brain interprets. Instead of looking at a screen for augmented reality, they're changing the light band to insert the object and your brain does all the work with blending and whatnot to make it super-perceptually real.
https://gizmodo.com/how-magic-leap-is-secretly-creating-a-new-alternate-rea-1660441103
LockmanCapulet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:07:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I do think this is an interesting topic, but is there any way to prove/disprove it by studying the biology of the eye/optical nerves?
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:58:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Weโd probably have to understand consciousness first and thatโs a long ways away.
meatboyjj ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:15:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ive pondered this before...
My colour choices in kindergarten always seemed to be completely different from everyone elses when we were free to pick our own colours... I think I was pretty proud of my green teddy bear with a purple background and big yellow splotches (probably for stars or something).... no one else had splotches
dekker87 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:22:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
lol - I was hassling my dad about this when I was 9.
I think he finds me slightly annoying,.
imyourcaptainnotmine ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:30:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My favourite. I often ponder this
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:02:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:10:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Having the same physiology isnโt a strong enough point. There are many parts of consciousness that are different for different people. Some people think in words while others find that idea completely alien because they think in feelings and images. Some people do โseeโ something when they picture it in their mindโs eye and otherโs think thatโs just a figure of speech.
Cleverbird ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:27:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Personally I find the concept that there's colors out there that we cant even see to be far more mind blowing. Like, just try and imagine a whole new color... You're not gonna succeed, but they're out there simply because our dinky eyes only have access to a limited spectrum. We can only see 3 colors and all its combinations, the Mantis Shrimp can (if memory serves) see fifteen colors and all its combinations.
demvic1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:40:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Vsauce made a video on this
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:18:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
While this is true, I'm satisfied with the fact that we are both looking at the same wavelength. I can't be bothered to concern myself with whether or not the fart I smelled the other day is the exact same smell someone else smelled. The same molecules entered both our noses.
music_user ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:28:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is called the inverted spectrum argument
ZeePirate ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:39:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This does happen with color blind people, (not to the degree you are talking about though) to some extent
Explain_like_Im_Civ5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:56:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As someone with deuteranopia, they're the same. is joke
zephyrprime ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:15:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember a kid talking about this when I was in highschool but since they invented the various mri based mind reading machines, the fact that they work is an indication that everyone DOES have nearly the same mental experiences. Otherwise the machine would be incompatible with everyone except the person it was prototyped on.
xxyxxyyyx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:35:09 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I heared it before but I have one big problem with this theory.
People share favorite color mixes. A lot of people like: Black Red, Black White, Red White, Yellow Black, Blue White
A lot of people like the same dresses because of colors, if we all would see different colors but just think they are the same we would not share a lot of feelings with colors.
AussieWorker ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:12:22 on April 20, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
would interpret? green. or perhaps their mind would understand that color to be green
SensorKanzi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:51:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And before someone comes up with the most common counter-argument to this: That you can get someone elseโs eye and still see the samr colors... Remember that the eye as a whole is not replaced, its only the Cornea.
thegreatpablo ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:34:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also the fact that what we are perceiving as color is how our brain interprets that data. If our brains interpret it differently, we could have different experiences.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I just explained this to my niece yesterday. She didn't get it.
PointyOintment ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:58:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Have her read Wikipedia's article on it, maybe
Ace-of-Spades88 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:59:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We perceive objects as having color because they reflect a certain wavelength of light. Unless you're just talking about the naming convention we've used to label objects that reflect a certain wavelength of light? Yeah, we could have decided a long time ago to call yellow by the name blue...but otherwise the wavelength of light being relfected and the way our eyes are designed to perceive that are pretty much a scientific certainty.
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:06:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What I'm saying is that you can't know if the color I see when I look at a wavelength of light is the same color you see when you look at that wavelength. Go ahead and try to describe a color without using other colors or things associated with colors.
Raszhivyk ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:43:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A color only exists as those representations. The wordless image of a color we make in our heads only exists as built up memories and experiences with things we cone to consider as within that conceptual range. We don't, by the nature of the fact we aren't all genetically identical and start in the exact same environment with the exact same experiences develop the exact same "full sized" concept of a given color.
PointyOintment ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:57:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You appear to be agreeing
Raszhivyk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:56:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I completely agree, I just dislike that people use the difference between our conscious experiences to imply that this means there's more than physical phenomena going on.
science_2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:42:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But we do know...
All human eyes perceive color the same way, there's literally nothing fundamentally different about one eye from the next that could change how you perceive color.
And all objects reflect a certain wave length, it's impossible to have an object reflect two different wave lengths of light.
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:45:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not talking about the eye. I'm talking about how that information translates into the color you see in your brain.
science_2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:48:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They translate the information the same...
Do you realize that color blind tests and other color related things would be completely useless in your world?
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:58:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Color blindness tests wouldnโt be affected because, like I said, this is about the perception within the brain and nothing to do with how the eye sees light.
Think of it this way. Imagine if from birth, your color wheel was rotated 120 degrees. So instead of seeing red when you look at something red, you see blue. Instead of violet you see orange. And so on. While growing up, you were taught that the color you see when you look at a rose is called red. Youโd have absolutely no way of knowing you were any different from anyone else.
science_2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:02:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know what you're saying, you don't need to keep repeating it, I understand the concept.
You just don't understand that there are multiple holes in your theory, there's 7 billion people ALIVE on this planet. There's absolutely ways to tell, if there's been billions of people with different color perceptions
SmartAlec105 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:06:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How can you tell? If someone saw red as red and the other saw red as blue, theyโd still agree that itโs red. If those two people had a nonfunctional cone for the color red, then the first person would no longer see red and the second would no longer see blue.
science_2 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:08:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because primary colors a thing.
if someone saw red as an orange than that's a problem, because if they took a middle school art class then they would know that orange is a mixture of two colors, you can't mix two colors to make a primary color.
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:24:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
With my example of 120 degree rotation, the primary colors are mapped to the other primary colors. Theyโd be taught that orange is a mixture of red and yellow and thereโd be no issue. Itโs just that in their mind, they are seeing violet when they look at orange.
science_2 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:32:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The problem is that all colors give off a certain wave length, and that our eyes absorb that wave length the same way.
You can't just claim that someone's blue would reflect the same wave length as someone's yellow. That's impossible, because certain colors reflect certain wave lengths, and our eyes will absorb those wave lengths the same way.
It's been studied that our eyes RECEIVE and TRANSMIT the same wave length to our brain to produce "color".
To say that someone is perceiving color in a different way is saying that the object with the color is transmitting two different wave lengths of light, which is impossible.
SmartAlec105 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:38:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not saying that the object is transmitting two different wavelengths of light. I'm saying that we have no good reason to think that the color perceived by the brain is the same between different people. Everything in the process from the light being absorbed by the cones to the signal being sent to the brain is the same as you have said. I'm saying that we can't say anything about what it's like inside the brain because we don't absolutely understand consciousness. Even something like "viewing something in your mind's eye" is different between people.
science_2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:51:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
great you don't understand what's inside of the brain so you're arguing hypothetical situations.
SmartAlec105 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:54:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, yeah. This is a question we don't have an answer to one way or the other. That's why it's in the realm of philosophy and questions rather than psychological facts.
ThatOtherCanadianGuy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:38:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When you are taught colours in school, you are told red is the colour of apples. But it may not be red to little Timmy, it might be what you call green, but because you and little Timmy are told that the apple is red, that's what's red to them. You have no way of knowing that little Timmy sees a green apple BECAUSE he was told it was red.
science_2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:44:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I understand what this theory is... I don't know why you're telling it to me again.
Also you didn't even address my point on primary colors.
ThatOtherCanadianGuy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:54:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because it's not really complicated, it's like a simple pun or joke when you expect it to be funnier or longer. It's just something to think about.
About the primary colours, it's the same thing. Person 1's red is Person 2's green which is also Person 3's blue.
Ex. What if one day we changed blue's name to purple? Nothing changes.
PointyOintment ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:56:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
ramboy18 ยท 1471 points ยท Posted at 17:51:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I hope this belongs here but for me, "You are the universe experiencing itself."
To think that we have the same matter in our bodies that was once in a star before it exploded blows my mind. To me this is the most awe inspiring idea of creation.
[deleted] ยท 1212 points ยท Posted at 19:43:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am the universe jerking itself off four times a day.
Putins_Orange_Cock ยท 651 points ยท Posted at 20:32:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like to say, "Given enough time, hydrogen begins to masturbate and act awkwardly around girls".
belloch ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 23:28:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why feel awkward when you're already masturbating around girls?
bonediggerninja ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 08:12:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The power of the Oxford comma.
NomThemAll ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 23:42:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Give hydrogen enough time on Earth and it launches a Tesla into space
AussieWorker ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:48:19 on April 20, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Recording and transmitting itself orbiting objects it was made from
Bioniclegenius ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 20:46:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Those are rookie numbers.
whitehousea ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 20:57:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Beat me to it
Bioniclegenius ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:58:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure ( อกยฐ อส อกยฐ)
MidNightTalker13 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 20:47:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm ashamed that that blew my mind more than ramboy's comment...
junglizt05 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:25:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When ever I write a sentence which has a back to back 'that', I try to figure out a way to re-write it. It's just way too stange for me.
MidNightTalker13 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:20:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Woah I didn't realize I did that. I'm usually the same way.
anothermuslim ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:41:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this why the universe is expanding? to distance itself from you?
BurntToast4 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:54:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Username Checks out???
striped_frog ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:26:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What you need is a Big Bang.
Moooney ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:17:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am the universe's colon. I get cancer. I kill the universe.
EinarrPorketill ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:21:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One time I masturbated while on LSD and I felt like I was having sex with the universe itself. 10/10 would do again
BlindStark ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:15:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise
axellie ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:35:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My favorite comment ever
your_inner_monologue ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:15:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
seven times if you count mine too.
phantomEMIN3M ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:43:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Gotta pump those numbers up!
majesticshit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:04:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How do you have the time? I need to get better at time management. My self-universe musings aren't getting their due diligence.
Calmecac ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:42:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
only 4 times?
rookie
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:47:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
๐ฅฉ๐ฅ๐ฅฉ๐ฅ๐ฅฉ๐ฅ๐ฅฉ๐ฅ๐ฅฉ๐ฅ
NoFaptain99 ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 20:39:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
r/NoFap will change your life.
officers3xy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:27:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Miss me with that unhealthy shit
NoFaptain99 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:00:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You think jerking off 4 times a day is HEALTHY? Have you ever come away from watching porn and actually felt good and fulfilled about what you just did?
Chazzysnax ยท 267 points ยท Posted at 20:24:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"You did not come into this world, you came out of it. Like a wave from an ocean."
-Alan Watts (the same person who said your quote up there)
ohyeahimember ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 00:41:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always liked "you are an aperture through which the universe looks at itself."
DSice16 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 04:49:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That quote reminds me of this picture I've had on my phone for years. https://i.imgur.com/57dA0GD.jpg
Nachusek ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:57:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I love this picture
AlbedoAnimus ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:45:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And to expand from that one -
"Regard yourself as a cloud. Did you ever see a cloud that was misshapen? Did you ever see a badly designed wave? No, they always do the right thing. And if you will treat yourself for a while as a cloud or a wave, you'll realise that you can't make a mistake whatever you do"
batsofburden ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:43:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
More like a weed from a shoddy patch of dirt.
Crice6505 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:31:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not true. I cum into it several times a day.
Sporadicduck ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 20:38:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the best thing Alan Watts ever thought me.
matthewshore ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 03:47:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
2 quotes on this I like: * "Given enough time, Hydrogen starts to wonder where it came from, and where its going." - Attributed to Edward R Harrison. * โToday a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.โ - Bill Hicks
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:08:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"You are a fluke of the universe. You have no right to be here, and whether you can hear it or not the universe is laughing behind your back."
ikindalold ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:02:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now this one seems more realistic.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:18:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can thank National Lampoon :)
david_1199 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:39:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like tool, too.
a_little_toaster ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:56:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You also were once just food, which was once plants and other animals.
MintyTruffle ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:56:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The energy in your body right now is the same energy that caused the big bang.
axellie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:34:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Incredible thought.
Hackrid ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:01:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
yay so does a dog turd.
StickInMyCraw ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:41:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And for all eternity our atoms will be re-used over and over as life evolves. Reincarnation is demonstrably true then in a way.
IndifferentTalker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:02:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like this quote from Rumi: "Stop acting so small. You are the universe in ecstatic motion."
mdthegreat ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:12:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is my favorite quote, except I've tweaked it into a haiku and added some song lyrics.
Born of Earth and light
We are all the universe
Learning of itself
dust4ngel ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:27:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
when people ask "do you think the universe is conscious?" i confidently reply that i know it is.
HomeStarCraft ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:37:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are just the product of some hydrogen that's made it this far on its journey. And it will continue after to you're gone.
ambivalentasfuck ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:11:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The process of nucleosynthesis is mind blowing.
Fayt23 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:52:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is pretty much what pantheism is
Aeon1508 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:58:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
These smiling eyes are just a mirror for the sun
LegoMan888 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:34:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know this isn't related but the first time I did acid my ego death had that saying going on repeat in my head, but with the addition that once you realize that you implode and start over and something about death, it was alot going on in the ol noggin but it's just really weird seeing this typed out when I've never read it before (maybe I have but I can't remember ever seeing it).
knobtremor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:04:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So did garbage.
Nehoul ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:53:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"We are star stuff. We are the universe made manifest trying to figure itself out." - Delenn
judas_ii ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:36:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โThe nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.โ - Carl Sagan
MagnusAlkatraz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:23:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh dang. I like it dude.
Oh_ffs_seriously ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:25:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I find it significantly less awe-inspiring after I'm reminded of the fact the same can be said of things filling the dark recesses of a god-forsaken, third-grade fast-food 'restaurant'.
android_tablet ยท 63 points ยท Posted at 02:16:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The First Maxim of Kant's Categorical Imperative. Specifically, Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. In other words, only do something if you think that everyone else in existence, e.g. loved ones, friends, family, even people you don't know, also did this, all the time.
I actually try to live by this, every single day.
Examples:
Is it okay to flirt when you already have a significant other? What about "just kissing"? What about more? First, think about the kind of world it would be if everyone did that, including your significant other behind your back. Does that sound like the kind of world you want to live in? If not, don't do it. Not even once.
Lying. Is "white lying" okay? Only if you think it's okay for all people, all the time, also tell others, including yourself, white lies. If not, don't do it. Not even once. I'd hope I don't even need to go into other kinds of lying which people see as "worse" than "little white lies"...
(Lying, in itself, is a horrible thing anyway according to Kant's second maxim of his categorical imperative, but that's a whole other comment.)
Etc.
For me, it's mind blowing because it changed how I approach ethically tricky issues, and indeed, how I live my life. It's hard to stay with sometimes... But it also brings comfort and resolution at other times. I.e. is there something you're not sure it's okay to do? Well, think for a second. Is it a good, or at least harmless world, if everyone else also does this? Then you're golden. If that's not the kind of world you would like to live in, then don't do it, not even "just this one time". Problem solved.
robotsincognito ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 05:52:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So you (and Kant) think gay sex is immoral? If everyone did it then thereโs no procreation and the species dies out.
For the record, I have no problem with homosexuality. But I did argue this in a philosophy class once. In Miami of all places. Did not make a lot of friends that day. But the professor โappreciated my bravery.โ
Edit: I didnโt explain that well. The assignment was to try and disprove Kantโs version of morality and that was the route I went.
android_tablet ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 06:15:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Respectfully, that's a good question and I upvoted you for it, but I disagree with your framing of that question.
If you're gay, and want to have gay sex, the world you're envisioning for the sake of figuring out if this is morally sound shouldn't be that "everyone has gay sex".
Why? Because the problem you're trying to solve isn't that. You're really asking if gay people are allowed to have sex with gay people. More generally, what you want to do is have sex with someone who is of a sex/gender you're attracted to. The world to envision, then, is one where all people are having sex with people who are of a sex/gender they're attracted to, rather than one where they're not (for one example, if they're feeling forced to not have gay sex when they're gay). With this, it's clear that gay sex isn't immoral.
One of my friends had a similar problem with Kant which boiled down to his framing of the question, which will hopefully help clarify what I'm trying to get at here. He asked if he were in a relationship with someone who only wanted to be in a monogamous relationship with him, but he thought polygamy was the way we should all go. Hence, in this hypothetical situation, he started seeing other girls too, maybe even having sex with other girls. All the while expecting that the original relationship should be fine, because he thinks polygamy is okay (regardless that his SO isn't okay with it). His reasoning was that he'd be okay with polygamy as a worldwide practice, so therefore it's okay, under Kant, to just start dating/having sex with other women, right?
Wrong. That's not the problem. The problem that needs solving here is that two people have made a (implicit or explicit) commitment to love only each other, but then one of them broke that commitment while still expecting the relationship to continue ("but I believe in polygamy" or not, regardless of excuse as the reasoning for the cheating doesn't end up being what's important). Does that sound like a world you want to live in? Where all people everywhere break important commitments with their SO while still expecting the relationship to continue unaffected? If not, then the potential solutions to this problem become clear: Don't cheat, talk with your SO about changing to a polygamous relationship, or leave the relationship if polygamy is that important to you.
Sorry that I ramble, I hope I made sense.
robotsincognito ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 06:24:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isnโt that the basis of what Kant is saying though. Extrapolate any behavior to the worldwide level. Does it break civilization? Then itโs immoral. Murder=everyone is dead, therefore breaking civilization. Lying=communication is no longer possible, therefore breaking civilization. Iโm not saying being with who youโre attracted to is immoral. The morality of homosexuality is something that people do debate about seriously. Iโm not one of them. I just thought it would be interesting to see it used as an example to test Kantโs theory. If men only had sex with men and women only had sex with women, then thereโs no next generation and human civilization fails. We got into bisexuality, IVF, and cloning and all kinds of stuff in the debate. Thatโs neither here nor there. Just saw your post and chimed in with my relevant memory from undergrad philosophy class.
android_tablet ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:36:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Essentially, I believe we're ultimately agreeing while ending on disagreeing results ๐
With my example I'm saying gay sex is okay from the frame I posed: everyone has sex with the gender/sex they're attracted to. This does not "break civilization", hence it's okay. If we're only saying that all men have sex with only men, and all women have sex with only women, as you pose, then yes, that breaks civilization, but it's also hard for me to accept that that's the world we should be envisioning to solve the question "is gay sex okay". I do accept where you're coming from, and your interpretation of Kant, to come to your conclusion, though.
Let me put it another way. You are saying gay sex is bad because if everyone only did that, it would end civilization. I'm saying having sex with the gender/sex you want is fine, because that would not cause collapse. How to resolve these different answers, when they're ultimately related questions? I'd propose that your question is a subset of my wider, more general question. Does that mean that my answer supersedes? I could argue that yes, it should, but that does leave it on shakier ground for me to defend, too... Thoughts?
(Also, I know you don't actually believe that gay sex is bad, I'm just using "you" as my counterexample.)
Honestly, by the sound of it I would have loved to take part in that debate. Alas, most of my views on philosophy only developed more fully after I left University, anyway. So it probably wouldn't have been as much fun for me at the time...
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 15:00:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
android_tablet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:50:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You do have to extrapolate, but the maxim you're trying to will into a universal law needs to take into account what you're actually trying to achieve, otherwise it also doesn't work.
Take for example, deciding whether you should marry your girlfriend. The maxim you're proposing cannot be "Marry your female partner", because that doesn't hold when applying that maxim to other females in the world - if a woman was proposed to by a man, they'd be compelled to reject and marry their female compatriots instead, according to that maxim. What you really need to be proposing, then, is "Marry your <loved partner/significant other/other wording denoting a person you want to live your life with>" or other similar wording, so that this can also apply to the females in the world.
That example with the axe murderer is a great example for what's wrong with Kant's Categorical Imperative, because you're right. You cannot lie to another moral agent. That said, I believe there's also nothing wrong with shutting the door and calling the police.
(As a vaguely related, personal aside, I do find the No Lying Ever part of the Categorical Imperative one of the hardest parts to consistently follow. I think I do a good job most of the time, but sometimes, those white lies do creep in :S ... The real world is tricky like that haha.)
is_is_not_karmanaut ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:57:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Gay sex is in itself not a limitation. Only gay sex would be a limitation which I assume is what you meant.
Gay people limit themselves to only gay sex because they are not attracted to the opposite sex. The contrapositive to your argument would therefore be, that it is our moral obligation to fuck people we don't find attractive for the sake of reproduction if we cannot find people we find attractive to do so. If everyone did this (yes your logic implies that everyone should have kids) and countless families get created with parents who don't love each other - do you really think the world would be better off than if we let people choose whether they want to reproduce or not?
robotsincognito ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, I donโt think that at all. We were discussing Kantโs view and my classmates on the whole agreed with the premise. We were then asked to try and come up with arguments against it. I posed this because I knew it would make everyone else uncomfortable. Not because I base my morality on Kant and I donโt like gay sex.
is_is_not_karmanaut ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:15:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah I know that. I'm not attacking you personally, duh. I'm just pretty sure that the argument doesn't hold.
robotsincognito ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:23:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well thereโs no argument for universal morality that really holds. I backed the Kant people into a corner. You took my example, flipped it around, and still backed the Kant people into a corner.
android_tablet ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:27:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For what it's worth (OP here again), I also agree that no system of universal morality can really hold IRL. I do however find the Categorical Imperative to be the one which seems best suited for me figuring out almost all ethically tricky issues IRL, so in that sense that's the reason I like it the most.
is_is_not_karmanaut ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:57:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't really know much about all the CI scenarios. Is sitting in front of my PC morally wrong because if everyone did it, we would all die since the room is too small? Well no, I'm pretty sure that's not what Kant had in mind.
But back to the gay example. Being gay is not a choice, and therefore not a moral choice. I don't think the CI applies to things we don't choose. Is it immoral to be male because in a world of just males, the species could not reproduce? We can talk about the morality of the active choice to never have kids (by people who otherwise could). Maybe that would be immoral according to the CI. I'm sure that would be something many more people could agree on.
robotsincognito ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:12:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Great point on the choice aspect.
Lilifer92 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:21:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was thinking something similar but with picking flowers. Life would collapse of all flowers evetywhere were picked and killed off, but really is there anything wrong woth picking a single flower?
Vedenhenki ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:54:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That seems too black and white to be practical. Is it okay to flirt if you have an SO? Depending on your situation, maybe. I'm in a polyamorous relationship, so it's totally okay for me and my SO both.
Lying, then. I used to be a priest. I had a legal requirement to act, speak and testify as confessions never happened. I had to lie, and I think it was the only right thing to do. But on other circumstances (like testifying about any other thing), lying would be strong.
Every decision happens on unique circumstances, and those heavily affect the morality. But since all the circumstances are unique, it is meaningless to ask of it would work as an universal law, since those specific factors will never happen again.
Also - I might say that X is wrong on every instance I can imagine. Yet I cannot say there is no instance it would be the moral choice, so I cannot say it's an universal truth. Consider an madman kidnapping you and your three children, and saying that of you don't kill one of them, he will kill you all. Is it still wrong? What of the threat is instead to detonate a stolen nuke on NY? Is it still the lesser evil?
JargonR3D ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:21:26 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looks like masturbation in private is clear.
android_tablet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:49:28 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
๐
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 04:25:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
android_tablet ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:53:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but that's a very different case. What you're really looking at is if it's okay for everyone in the world to flirt, kiss, etc. with their own significant other. I'd certainly hope such a world is acceptable to you!
If I'm just misunderstanding your sarcasm, then, well, carry on ๐
Gargusm5 ยท 2266 points ยท Posted at 17:18:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That bathtubs are just the reverse boats
abilityundefined ยท 696 points ยท Posted at 21:49:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you wear a t-shirt inside out, the entire universe is wearing it except you.
goldygofar ยท 374 points ยท Posted at 00:40:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What the fuck
Arcanehavok ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 09:13:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this guy is high and you have blown his mind.
Coolfuckingname ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:10:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Plus one for proper usage of that saying.
ONE_MAN_MILITIA ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:52:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm laughing way to hard at this lmao I'm crying!
ulyssessword ยท 125 points ยท Posted at 06:01:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician are each asked to build a pen to hold sheep, using as little material as possible.
The engineer starts by counting the sheep and determining how close they get to each other. He integrates over the area and builds a circular pen just big enough to hold them all.
The physicist starts with a large loop of fence around the entire flock, then contracts it whenever there's some open space.
The mathematician builds a fence around himself and declares that he's outside.
Nequam_Asinus ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:38:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just dig a hole.
svenson_26 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:48:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For the physicist part I always said: "The physicist starts with a large fence circling the earth, and contracts it until he hits the first sheep"
Aperture_T ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:54:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When I tell it, they're trying to build the fence with as much area as possible, but a finite amount of fence building materials.
The physicist makes a circle to maximize area and the engineer steals the physicist's idea, but uses a river as part of the barrier.
Spicy_Pak ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:50:53 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The engineer looks up the ratio in his fence to sheep chart.
ulyssessword ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:29:43 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A physicist, a mathematician, and an engineer are asked to determine the volume of a small red ball.
The physicist submerges it in water and uses the displacement and Archimedes' Principle to determine the volume.
The mathematician measures the diameter and takes the double integral to find the volume.
The engineer starts flipping through all of his books, then finally throws his hands up in the air. "Does anyone have a green-to-red conversion table? I can only find a green ball volume table."
Throwaway_2-1 ยท 48 points ยท Posted at 01:30:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reminds me of this
http://i.imgur.com/psZDvT8.jpg
jojohunter436 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:08:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, fuck you for reminding me of that. I hate that comic.
abilityundefined ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:20:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That is exactly what it reminded me of when I first reddit! Geddit? Reddit? I'll show myself out now thanks
Rudeirishit ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:28:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think that's where the name of the site came from.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:42:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the highest shit i've ever heard. lol
CornerPilot93 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:00:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This just made me spit out my coffee, thanks for the laugh haha
dusht_singh ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:10:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't get this. Can someone explain?
Virulan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:38:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One way to define "wearing a shirt" is by saying that if the inside of the shirt faces you, you're wearing it. If you wear a shirt inside out and continue to define the inside of the shirt as the inside instead of saying it's now the outside, then since the entire universe is facing your shirt, the entire universe is wearing your shirt, and you are the only one not wearing it.
SirNoodlehe ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 09:54:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Gonna be a party pooper but not really.
It's like if you ate and inside-out t-shirt, you're not actually wearing it, you just contain an inside-out t-shirt.
ZyraReflex ยท 537 points ยท Posted at 20:23:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck, this is one of the only things in this thread that I've never even thought of for a second. This shit is fucked up.
leo_rvh ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 03:03:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also, if you wear your pants backwards then the entire universe is inside your pants except you.
SBorealis ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 03:32:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why is this giving me a crisis
[deleted] ยท 252 points ยท Posted at 17:59:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Duuuuuuddeeee that got me like daaaaamnn
[deleted] ยท 150 points ยท Posted at 20:14:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
pass the bowl
DoubleArmFractures ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 22:18:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
passes bowl
Doing the dishes together is fun!
Smitten_the_Kitten ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 21:17:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hits blunt
Bruh...
...
Sorry. Zoned out for 85 years.
happy_beluga ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:48:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
my dude
UnderestimatedIndian ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:07:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
my guy
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:42:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
my pal
jonesg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:55:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Okay, but like, be careful man. It's 1/3 weed, 1/3 DMT, and 1/3 peyote. Have a blast!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:39:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Austin, we have liftoff
jonesg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:57:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Have you come down yet?
jaybram24 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:16:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How high are you?
imperfectphoto ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:36:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Five feet
ArmyOfDog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:08:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A waterfall is a reverse dam.
Swiftster ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 20:40:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pack it up boys, thread is over.
rayoflight110 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:22:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't get it. Can someone explain?
Cedrinho ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:33:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If I understand correctly, it's that basically a boat and a bathtub have pretty much the same shape, BUT when it comes to bathtubs the water is on the inside whereas for boats it's on the outside.
Whiskers_Fun_Box ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:40:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A boat keeps water on the outside while providing a dry interior for people to sit.
A bathtub keeps water on the inside while providing a wet (water-filled) interior for people to sit.
TheloniousPhunk ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:53:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A boat is a big container' that has a sole purpose to float on water, and keep said water out of it.
A bathtub is a big container whose sole purpose is to keep water floating in it.
They are opposites.
rayoflight110 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:46:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nothing particularly mind blowing though
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:34:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
fnord_happy ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 21:33:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bye good night :)
Cactus_Apache ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:42:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So the toy boat I play with in a bath is a boat within an anti-boat?!?! Mind blown!!
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:08:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
holy f
26_Charlie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:22:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I want a wooden bathtub then.
TrashbagJono ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:29:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A bathtub is literally just a fancy bucket.
minxiloni ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:12:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't the entire ocean then just a reverse boat?
yaypeepeeshome ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:01:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That is the quintessential shower thought
Sir_JaydenofRandell ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:38:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just read about theory about quantum physics and time travel and then scroll down to this ffs.
keeleon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:17:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Preganant woman are reverse submarines.
Maebyfunke37 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:55:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A pregnant woman in a body of water is a submarine.
keeleon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:09:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The people in submarines are not swimming in liquid.
hairyholepatrol ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:23:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Beautiful human submarines
RebelScrum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:10:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Some boats have bathtubs on them, and some bathtubs have toy boats in them
KarmaUK ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:34:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Makes sense, boats stop working if you fill them with water, after all.
bless_ure_harte ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:57:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are you high?
cultculturee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:33:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fish tanks are like submarines for fish
pepsicola1995 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:59:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are waterballoons then reverse submarines?
WhiteRaven42 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:41:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It could be a boat. Just put it on the water empty.
And every boat is a tub. That's why they're called vessels.
LeakyLycanthrope ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:27:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait. What if you were in a bathtub that had some water in it, but that was also floating in the ocean? That would make it a boat...but it's already a reverse boat, so that cancels out...WHAT IS IT THEN?!
SimpleManSC ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:32:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not exactly. A boat is designed to float, a bathtub isn't designed to sink, just to hold water.
SpookyLlama ยท 1814 points ยท Posted at 15:40:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Quantum Immortality
It's a thought experiment based on a multiverse theory. In that if you pointed a gun to your head and pulled the trigger, your consciousness would persist in the universes where the gun jammed, therefore making everyone immortal inside their own consciousness.
princekeagan ยท 623 points ยท Posted at 19:14:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Something that always bugs me about this theory is, what happens when you get old? Do you just continue on your life as the longest living person ever?
SpookyLlama ยท 345 points ยท Posted at 20:00:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs the only part that doesnโt really get explained. But I donโt see how it could be explained any other way, unless thereโs some universal limit to human longevity.
farm_ecology ยท 268 points ยท Posted at 21:09:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As far as we can tell, age is really just an accumulation of damage.
It's also possible that some other event causes an extension of your lifespan, the discovery of life extension for example.
MangaDev ยท 111 points ยท Posted at 23:23:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's insane how our body will do anything to keep us alive , but it's it just can't stop time from killing us
athena234 ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 04:45:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no evolutionary pressure to do so. You've sired children and have grandchildren by that age. Evolution gives no fucks.
1dayHappy_1daySad ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 23:41:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And it comes down to the "blueprint" of our body gets messed up overtime and our rebuilding is worse and worse. Dude just copy it somewhere before any damage has been done to it, restore the original storage with that cool cell regen thing we all have and then restore the copy and so on.
calvanus ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 11:10:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dude imagine living in a world where this is commonplace and the worst thing someone could do to a person is destroy your copy.
Chumlax ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:32:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's essentially the fundamental plot of Altered Carbon, just slightly more physical and less mental.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 05:11:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not your body, but your consciousness that strives to live on. You get old because your body can't sustain the mind anymore.
give_me_bewbz ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:05:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because it's evolutionary advantageous to the species for us to have a lifespan limited to this length.
You live long enough to pass on your genes - done. You also live long enough to give knowledge to your offspring? Brilliant, may as well live a little longer.
And over years this time to confer knowledge sloooowly extended to the point where we are now, post child-having age. Our primary reason for our longevity is our brains. Evolution works on crazy long timescales.
Symphonic_Rainboom ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:16:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The only possible time for you to come into existence was today, because these longevity extension breakthroughs are right around the corner and will keep you immortal.
campex ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:24:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
YES! Exactly! I've been trying to explain this to people and they just don't get it or I explained it all wrong more likely
RebelScrum ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:49:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think this could be interpreted as people who came before the advent of immortality weren't actually conscious. Though I guess it could have been invented arbitrarily far in the past of other universes... What about the very first human, who couldn't possibly invent it?
farm_ecology ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:22:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is basically the gist of it.
Either they might not be conscious or the circumstances are different and things happen far quicker.
Another possibility is that for one reason or another they become frozen or otherwise in suspended animation is such a way that allows revival later
AWildEnglishman ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:03:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just want to mention The Man From Earth. Good movie.
scottishere ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:38:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That seems almost impossible for those in the stone-ages (just one example).
nitr0smash ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:50:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
shrug The stone-age cavemen were visited by aliens. There's your life extension.
It's ridiculous, but hey.
farm_ecology ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:21:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. The reasons for surviving would likely just because more and more absurd.
Silver721 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:13:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone starts their life with a DOT that ticks for zero damage until you're 21, then it starts exponentially increasing.
kosmoceratops1138 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:14:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, technically it is. But a lot of forms of damage are a natural consequence of basic life functions, such as cell division and metabolic processes, so there is a very hard limit on human longevity until we work out a lot of things.
jaywalk98 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:33:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What about people in the 1300s? It's very unlikely (improbable) for that to occur.
farm_ecology ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 05:16:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
From perspective, sure. But they might have experienced a very different 1300s.
stillnoxsleeper ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:19:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If there's really an infinite amount of universes then surely some of them would have discovered the cure to endless youth or something.
dragonthemagicpuff ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:06:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or rather losing more and more of the telomeres at the end of your chromosomes
Buttons840 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:11:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Age is not "just accumulation of damage" otherwise the guy that never leaves his bed would live a very long time. The reality is the guy in bed would probably die early.
farm_ecology ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:17:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What? The reason the person that stays in bed dies quicker is because they accumulate more damage.
jr07si ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 22:26:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My thought is the timeline you happen to occupy is the one where something is discovered that keeps you immortal, whether consiousness is transferred by technology, or medical science somehow is discovered to let you live forever. Even thousands of years ago, the timeline someone was on happen to be the one where antibiotics were discovered earlier saving their life, or somehow a specific virus was introduced into the population that eradicated cancer, or alien nanobots showed up and made repairs to everyone. Those people just continued on a different track, while on our track they died.
nezrock ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:31:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying all I have to do to live forever is blow my brains out? BRB.
Vortex_Gator ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:07:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know this is a joke, but seriously don't.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:46:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
jr07si ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:55:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I understand it is a thought experiment and I addressed that with a couple of my own thoughts of how it could be reconciled in the past.
VeshWolfe ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 21:44:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
With the multiverse there are version of you that just came into being later and later down the timeline, so yes youโd still be immortal.
Morning_Star_Ritual ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 08:38:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok... Lets just say that there is a probable universe that 50 years from now allows an individual to injest nannites. These little bots then convert your neurons into artificial neurons...one at a time. After a few months a soft chime is heard and the scent of sandalwood fills the air.
This was the alarm you chose to notify you when your mind is digital.
You have preserved continuity and now have functional immortality.
You can lay in your armor coffin, plug in and live in a simulation with a dilated time ratio of one year to one minute. Or one hundred years to one minute.
As you age you keep getting lucky...you are always the man on the stage and not the one drowning in the box (The Prestige).
Until you "arrive" in the universe that offers you "immortality."
But entropy will win. Perhaps each observer has a different tolerance for novelty. Over time things will get fuzzy...a slow haze. Then oblivion.
Take this with a grain of salt. I'm just an outside salesperson from California. Just have found this fascinating my entire life. Check out "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch.
UniMatrix028 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:13:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I suspect at some point the continuation of your linear timeline becomes so improbable it will be more likely you will retain a continuous narrative but shift to a seemingly bizarre alternate timeline. Perhaps one where you are younger, or one where the appropriate technologies have been invented. Improbable, but given infinity and the fact one of those improbable timelines needs to be picked...
FandomCallsToMe ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:52:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Perhaps a better name would be quantum invulnerability?
SumminEDM ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:26:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When you die of old age your consciousness shifts to a doctor waking you up and saying, "We've cured and reversed aging! Here's a human-trial test shot!"
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:28:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If it's just probability, then everyone 'lives until they die of old age.'
Alternately. The reason why you're alive right now is because you're actually in an educational simulation to make you wise before starting your real life.
Alternately. The reason you're alive now is because by the time you would've deteriorated from old age, it'll be possible to revert it with genetic therapy, and you're actually on track to live forever.
Daefish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:27:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wouldn't it be possible that there are multiverses where age and longevity are almost limitless? i.e. for every time I die in a car crash across the multiverse, another me is living longer and longer because of the decisions of not only that multiverse's me but also possibly other people within that multiverse.
MintyTruffle ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 23:48:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would say you live to the oldest age that any of your multiple selves reach. So if you die of a heart attack, you jump to a universe where your heart is fine. But eventually all of you will die. You would just be the last one. Think of it as your ultimate timeline. You're not actually immortal, you just live as long as it is possible for you to live.
EvMARS ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:00:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
only from your perspective
bheklilr ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:59:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd recommend the book Anathem, which discusses these topics in more depth. There's a class of people who are seemingly able to direct their current consciousness down a particular path of quantum events to arrive at the desired results, such as extended life, with plenty of wibbly wobbly timey wimey thrown in. It's an interesting concept of a book.
CorvoLP ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:30:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
there was a Doctor Who novel with the fourth doctor called festival of death or something and there was an alien species that would relive their lives every time they died. basically their consciousness would travel back in time with all their memories, and they would do it over again, trying to live the "perfect" life
bheklilr ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:35:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I vaguely remember that one, which means it's passed time for me to re-watch all of doctor who.
CorvoLP ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:44:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
not an episode. it was a book
bheklilr ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:52:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Somehow missed that when reading your comment for the first time. I think I was thinking of the leisure hive.
Fancy451 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:58:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
HealthyBad ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 22:03:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You die at a very old age. Not necessarily the oldest ever. Human's can't live forever, at some point there's no branch in the quantum tree that leads to you taking another breath
Vortex_Gator ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:12:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not true, quantum tunneling and random movements can accomplish a lot, heck, it can even manifest a boltzmann brain (granted this is extremely rare in the tree, but compared to the 0% chance of you experiencing being properly dead).
Ghotay ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:53:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your consciousness would continue to exist in the universe where medical science and technology advance fast enough to make you effectively immortal
ionlyspeakinvowels ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:30:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even for the very old, is there a fundamental reason they donโt live 1-second longer? If not, then there is a universe where they live for that extra second. Repeat this logic.
The theory is that all consciousness is immortal in this way, not just that of the Worldโs oldest person.
rhoskin2 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:46:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In this theory we all eventually die alone at the the point of total heat death of the universe. Which I think is the most hardcore thing ever
trudenter ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:46:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We will transfer or consciousness into a computer or something.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:02:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol ill let you know when i get there
Spacealienqueen ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:02:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"what happens when you get old"
reincarnate into a parallel universe.
IthotItoldja ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:10:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Anything that is possible exists somewhere in the multiverse, therefore you would persist as long as it is within the laws physics for you to survive with your consciousness intact (because the thought experiment depends on consciousness, not a heartbeat). So you would live a long time then be rescued by some unlikely biotech being discovered (or delivered by aliens).
JoeyTwoTones ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:59:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Assuming that you are currently living your shortest life, and you consciousness pops into the next shortest, and the next and the next as you die, you would theoretically reach an age where the human body just cant go on living any longer, and your next consciousness is only a second more, leaving you infinitely experiencing death over and over again at the speed of light. ...fuck.
nickbitty72 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:00:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The movie Mr. Nobody is basically this concept....I think, it's a weird movie
oneandonlyNightHawk ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:13:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you die of old age and body degredation rather than a certain event, than there's no problem with the theory.
NotBearhound ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:48:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When you die peacefully of old age your conciousness slips overt to a lifetime where you were just born.
epicsmokey ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:11:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your conscious would continue on to the universe where you didnโt die at that moment, but to your โoriginalโ universe, youโd be dead. So from your view, youโd be alive forever, but from everyone elseโs view, youโre dead.
portodhamma ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:35:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You don't "switch" universes. You just are only aware when you're alive, so this is a timeline where you are alive.
You will live until it is mathematically impossible for you to live. Of course, the likelihood of you living to an absurdly improbably age in the same timeline as someone else who reaches an equally improbably age is close to nil, so everyone will be the oldest person ever.
Because you won't experience a timeline where you die.
tylerthehun ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:17:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You just so happen to be living in the universe in which practical immortality will be devised via medical technology within your lifetime.
portodhamma ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:37:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As long as there's a non-zero chance of you living, you will live. And considering the stuff I've been through, I'm inclined to believe it. I'm honestly just lucky I'm not permanently crippled.
2Punx2Furious ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:34:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's just a thought experiment, I don't think anything like that really happens.
But if I had to write a sci-fi explanation for it, I'd say anything possible to happen would happen, no matter how unlikely, in every universe, so there are universes in which you die, universes in which you live until the heat death, and everything in between.
When you get old, maybe you get saved by an alien race, or you live just enough for humanity to achieve negligible senescence, or anything like that.
portodhamma ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:41:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know if it's even possible in infinite universes for a person to live to the heat death of the universe.
In infinite universes, there wouldn't be a universe where 1+1=3 or where time goes backwards. A universe where someone lives forever could be just as impossible as one where a person can literall make stars in the sky by opening bottles of coke. We don't know the limits of possibility in that regard.
2Punx2Furious ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 09:54:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The heat death might not even be really unavoidable. There could be plenty of ways to reduce/reverse entropy that we are not yet aware of.
But yeah, it might be impossible, or it might not.
TheloniousPhunk ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:44:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My take on it is that in your "quantum immortality" you would eventually 'jump' to a universe in where one day you wake up to a ridiculous breakthrough that reverses aging and you have it administered right away.
It's far-fetched... but then again so is the entire theory.
wave_theory ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:50:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My thought is that it would just continue until there was no statistically probable path that could result in you surviving.
MissRobinson18 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:02:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe when your last living physical form in all possible universes dies you level up?
tededit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:21:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you look into it, there have always been rumors or stories about things that could make someone immortal or extend life (the fountain of youth, alchemy, etc). So whatever that life extending thing was is what you end up getting ahold of, and thus making sense to you as to why you are living longer than anyone else. You continue to live into immortality in your universe, and it would make sense to you.
hazardous1222 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:47:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You would only experience a universe where immortality is achieved through technological means. To you it would seem like from the moment you were born, technological advances would increase exponentially... Oh wait...
Rudeirishit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:27:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unless there is a universe that is a perfect 1:1 copy of this one, with the exception that it started 50 years later than ours, so you'd just end up experiencing yourself at a young age.
Vortex_Gator ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:01:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What happens is you suffer a heart attack/whatever organ failure kills people, and then your brain has all the particles quantum tunnel/jump around in just the right way to keep you conscious as the rest of your body fails, and then you're barely conscious forever, as there are far more worlds/branches where the
starsparticles align and you are barely conscious then it does to keep your whole body functioning as a super old person.The actual result of the quantum suicide gun would be a 50/50 chance of either the gun jamming, or the gun firing and leaving you immortal as your brain keeps your mind just barely conscious and aware of yourself.
This is pretty unsettling, but luckily "minimal consciousness" also means many of your mental faculties will be at their lowest, including your senses, so you won't be able to feel pain probably, or any other emotion, so that's a plus.
jojodolphin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:35:39 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if you wake up as a newborn? Like, you die, and just wake back up where your consciousness began?
Patergia ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:47:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You would just live forever due to quantum tunneling shenanigans.
[deleted] ยท 316 points ยท Posted at 21:42:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As someone who put a gun to their head, pulled the trigger, and the gun jammed, this really trips me out.
TheReinsofFullnight ยท 219 points ยท Posted at 00:09:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This happened to my brother in law as well. Hope youโre doing okay now... And welcome to this timeline hah.
Neodrivesageo ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 01:14:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm traveler 0420. Welcome to the 21st century
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 03:30:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
uoht ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:05:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is the show's name?
PvtTimHall ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:43:49 on April 14, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Travelers
Excusemytootie ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 03:28:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have never put a gun to my head, but I have survived something in that realm. This scenario of possibility has passed through my head countless times. What if I didnโt actually survive...?
AnfrageUndNachgebot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:36:03 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
wake up
thirstythespian ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 23:23:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow, glad the gun jammed... Story time? If you're okay with it?
[deleted] ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 01:37:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was 17. About 2 months prior, I saw my best friend die in a car accident.
I already had depression and after that trauma, I came to a breaking point.
My mom's boyfriend at the time was really into guns. One night, while they were staying at his place, I found his 9mm and went out back and into the high brush(we lived in the country), put the gun up to my temple, and pulled the trigger.
It jammed.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 01:40:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn man sorry for asking but it intrigues me so much. What emotions were you feeling when the gun jammed? What's the first thing you thought
[deleted] ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 01:47:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember a chill running down my spine. My first thought was just pure confusion.
Then I tried to fix the gun to no avail.
A strange mix of sadness, confusion, and disappointment.
[deleted] ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 02:11:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn I know you were suicidal, but I thought that there would be a natural sense of relief, even If it's only instinctual
WTables68 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:11:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He wonโt be upset by you asking him to tell a story he just volunteered
RJ1994 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:35:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same man. Same
CallMeAladdin ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:37:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, do we like charge you with the crime of murdering your multiverse doppelganger?
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:19:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So there's potentially a universe where it didn't jam? Damn that's heavy.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:32:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's a universe where I've been dead for 16 years.
Cleverbird ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:28:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Guess that means you're immortal now! Time to become a vigilante!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:31:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'll kill all who are mean to cats and dogs.
covor ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:25:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or maybe it just means there is a higher power out there who wanted you to live?
spiCCy_boii ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:52:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm glad you're still here :)
Aeon1508 ยท -5 points ยท Posted at 04:33:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You should try it again. If you're still alive a second time the theory practically has to be right.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:19:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I might. If I survive, I'll let you know, for science.
Aeon1508 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:24:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well it won't be in this universe but my alternate universe self appreciates it. For science!
Farmer771122 ยท 321 points ยท Posted at 19:28:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I read a short story about this concept. A scientist proves that at every single decision point, even at a quantum level, two universes spin off, one for each possible decision. Then he invents a device that lets him travel to a carefully chosen universe that meets his criteria. "One where I'm wealthy", "one where a supermodel is in love with me". And he tries to boast about the amazing power of his little omnipotence machine...
But when he uses it, people say "of course you're wealthy, you won a lottery scratchoff. There's nothing weird there, somebody wins every day." Or "of course that supermodel loves you. you romantically courted her, and you're rich, and you take care of her. it's just a relationship, nothing that weird about her being out of your league." So then he lets other people try the device - and although it works from their point of view, sending them to a new universe, it doesn't do anything at all in the universe they leave behind, which now contains a disappointed quantum duplicate person, including the machine.
The scientist tries to convince people his device really worked, but as soon as he loses possession of it, he's unable to keep avoiding consequences, and winds up committed to an expensive private mental institution by his truly loving wife who only wants to see him get better. The doctors destroy his machine since it's the focus of his psychosis. His wife keeps his committal secret because she genuinely doesn't want his reputation to suffer. And since he's too not a good liar, he can't convince his doctors that he's recovered from his delusions, or convince them that he won't immediately invest a fortune into building a new device... he spends the rest of his sad life in the loony bin.
Towerss ยท 96 points ยท Posted at 20:27:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Seems to me like the scientist should have seen that coming
greyrights ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:08:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In one universe he did. Just not that one.
BringMeTheBigKnife ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 22:40:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You might enjoy the book Dark Matter by Blake Crouch.
thattoneman ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 01:23:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The video game SOMA plays with a similar concept, that your entire consciousness can be copied and pasted in computers, or uploaded to robots. Except the key here is copy and paste, not cut and paste. So there are points in the game where the only way to progress is to upload your current consciousness to something new, be it a new, sturdier body or a means of surviving an otherwise physical death. But the "original," the one from which the copy was made, they're still alive and cognizant of their situation.
So the main character is a little slow to the draw, and doesn't fully grasp this. So when you copy your consciousness to a new robot, the game's perspective switches over to the new robot. Who is functionally the same person you've always been, just a new body. But then you see your old body and realize that you are still in there too, probably about to die or dying because of whatever circumstance made you jump bodies.
It's this crazy trip that sounds like the story you're telling. From the perspective of the "new" you, it worked. But there's still a version of you that it technically didn't work for.
Nikolig1999 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:23:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This sounds pretty close to Super Hot.
IthotItoldja ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:59:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, Iโve seen this. Itโs called Rick & Morty.
kelferkz ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:40:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Bring us the girl, wipe away the debt...
TinierRumble449 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:44:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He should have just used the machine and kept shtum.
ShuyaKenshin ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:53:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reminds me of the concept of the game, Soma
MintyTruffle ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:52:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's a story called "The Forest of Time" where a guy invents a similar machine and goes to a different timeline, but gets thrown in jail because they think he's a spy. The longer he is in jail the more "lost in time" he gets and eventually it becomes impossible for him to find his reality again. Worth a read, since I probably got a lot wrong because I read it so long ago.
uncleben85 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:57:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do you remember what it was called?
KPC51 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:03:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why ya gotta brag about shit. Keep It hidden
PM_meyour_closeshave ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:42:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Who the fuck would share the device?
โHey Iโve got this machine that tells you next weeks lottery numbers. Want to give it a try?โ
el-pietro ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:46:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't understand why he would want to share that information. I think about alternate universes way too often. I find the idea that in some universes I have won the lottery, or am a world famous musician or a doctor or something and in others I have been in horrible life changing accidents, or am in jail absolutely fascinating. If it were possible to move between these universes I can't say I wouldn't do it, but I would not draw any attention to that fact.
Farmer771122 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:29:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
because it's a lot harder to write 3-dimensional characters who only make logical decisions. :-) Or maybe, as a scientist, the thing he desired more than wealth and women was legitimate acknowledgement of his greatest discovery? I agree, it was a stupid move, but the short story had to get somewhere in a maximum number of pages, so I think the author just cheated a little.
el-pietro ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:31:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then he should have gone to a universe where people were open minded about these sort of things! I understand that storytelling is dull without conflict and I would definitely enjoy this story.
give_me_bewbz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:09:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then... he didn't make a device that lets him travel there. If he did, there would be him, and that universe's original at the destination.
What he's invented is a device that moves his mind into the body of his counterpart.
el-pietro ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:47:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or he goes to the universe where all those things are true but that universes him died. The Rick and Morty solution.
zephyrprime ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:13:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A scientist never proved anything of that sort. It's just wild conjecture.
Farmer771122 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:44:58 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this may be the most embarrassing comment I've ever seen
zombiexbox ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 20:17:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A bit like this YouTube skit with a time machine
eviltreesareevil ยท 142 points ยท Posted at 17:09:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Try it.
SpookyLlama ยท 305 points ยท Posted at 17:41:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
HOLY SHIT IT WORKS
the_great_zyzogg ยท 63 points ยท Posted at 21:50:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It didn't work for me. I'm dead now. :(
JTP2_Olliekay ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 22:10:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ri- wait a fucking minute
1dayHappy_1daySad ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:38:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
F
HexaBlast ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:13:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck I died too.
Krypticore ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:03:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like an ideal outcome for me, where do I sign up?
your_inner_monologue ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:04:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only in this timeline though.
SpermWhale ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:05:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
RELEVANT USERNAME!
JohnLemonBot ยท 156 points ยท Posted at 18:22:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You know somebody on Reddit actually killed themselves since they were so distressed from this topic. I forget the username but I think it was more mental illness than the actual topic that killed them.
Oshojabe ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 22:53:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The daughter of the creator of multiverse theory killed herself in the hopes that she would end up in a world where her father was alive.
SpookyLlama ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 07:59:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Who says she didnโt?
Rubiego ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 08:49:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only one way to find out!
atGuyThay ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:17:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Crazy, I just listened to an interview with the son, Mark Everett, frontman of the Eels, where he talked briefly about his father. Oh, multiverse
piejam ยท 100 points ยท Posted at 20:59:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah that person is just living in an alternate universe where he failed.
Nose_to_the_Wind ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:28:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reading the
SteinmennSteinmann Storks bookswave_theory ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:52:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah that's the problem with the idea...you may live in, but in the universe you leave you're still dead to everyone else you had ever known.
Mysteriousdeer ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 21:40:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've known a couple of people and have been through it personally where a certain ideology kind of puts you into a continual state of unease. Existentialism, where there is kind of no point, is an example of this. People get their kicks out of having some kind of value. When there is no point, there is no value, there is no real reason for life.
Mars2Jupiter ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:09:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How do you even get past this? I've been struggling with this for a long time and I feel existentially paralyzed.
Mysteriousdeer ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 22:41:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Holden Caulfield in the Catcher in the Rye. Kind of a well known book for a reason. At one point in your life you'll identify with him. At one point in your life you think he's just an angsty teen.
The message of the book is basically to let things go. Don't act like every little thing has to carry so much weight. Let things be and work on what gives you your little pleasures. Gotta find your own state of happiness and let the universe move around you rather than trying to move the universe I guess.
swimfast58 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:59:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The fact that there is no defined point to life is awesome - it means you get to choose the meaning! For some people it's just finding happiness, for others it's learning, and for others it's helping people. Usually it's a combination of things. Stop looking for the meaning of life and stay deciding what it is for you
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:36:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The thing is a lot of people can't find enjoyment in anything knowing it's all for nothing, they are basically extremely bored and uninterested and depressed all the time.
give_me_bewbz ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:12:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you're looking for meaning in that way, then you have to recognise that, in the scale of the universe, there simply is no meaning.
But, on the human scale, actions can definitely have a great meaning and impact. Sure, if I give a coffee to that homeless person, it won't stop the heat death of the universe, but it will make a homeless person a little warmer and happier. It may not matter to the universe, but it matters to them, and to me.
Recognise that relative experience, and embrace it.
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:00:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was thinking more along the lines that we will be dead fairly soon no matter what, and it's forever, so in that sense everything is pointless.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:13:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/r/soulnexus welcomes you
Raszhivyk ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:29:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Depends. I place value on the idea of learning more about the world around me, and feeling lucky that there's a slim chance that in this century life extension will make it so I don't have to die at all. But really besides the obvious options of ignoring it, choosing a religion, and suicide, you have to find things you value (for me, its STEM, slim hopes on technology and other people) and stick to that. It may seem tough but humans are really good at adapting.
trollcitybandit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:37:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Life extension! Ever seen Vanilla Sky?
bvanplays ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:08:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When I was finishing school while working I had a philosophy class of some sort I needed to go to. My boss said something to me like "Oh philosophy, be careful with that. Sometimes you start thinking and you can't stop yourself from thinking and you get stuck and then just have to kill yourself."
o_0
trollcitybandit ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:38:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I knew someone in my younger days who my cousin took philosophy class with in university that ended up killing himself.
Lordquaid ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:59:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah he was a little crazy and too obsessed with the concept to be normal right?
twistedlistener ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:26:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He's in a better universe now.
Theblade12 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:09:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A new account that was pretty much identical to the quantum immortality one, but with an obsession of some other philosophical concept instead, was created pretty much immediately after the original one's 'suicide', though. That seems suspicious to me.
ZeePirate ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:45:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thats a reddit story i havent heard of
gaslightlinux ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 19:07:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Didn't work, gun jammed, rope broke, and somehow I swim better than I thought.
Smitten_the_Kitten ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:19:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Puked up the pills, spilled the poison and the knife just...fell out!
Bluefish178 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:00:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do it you wonโt.
_MemeProphet_ ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 22:41:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This trips me up big time. Like whoa, I could live forever and see everyone die, but everyone else also lives forever in their subjective experience and sees me die. So, the body I'm "in" right now will die, I will die, but I can only experience myself living, not death. If the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, then the version of me that lives forever is out there somewhere, but it's not "me", but I will experience it, so I am that, but I'm also typing this comment and thinking all this in many other universes and I can't always be right.
The more I follow the logic through, the more tripped up I get. I seriously hope I don't turn out that guy who was driven insane by this, posted on r/askphilosophy, and possibly committed suicide. Except he survives from his own perspective, or just dies and is none the wiser.
I just push this out of my head when I see it, as I will right now as it close to midnight where I am right now. It is just way too trippy and I will go insane lol
SpookyLlama ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:07:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs purely a thought experiment.
Just ask yourself, โdoes it matter?โ
Your consciousness will be around for as long as will be around, so just enjoy life and donโt go putting sci fi thought experiments to the test for the love of god.
Theblade12 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:12:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Knowing that my time is limited gets in the way of enjoying life, though.
WhiteRaven42 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 22:16:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The multiverses don't make impossible things possible. Aging still happens, you will die.
(If there is a universe where aging doesn't happen, you're not there anyway).
SpookyLlama ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:04:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But you would end up in the universe where your consciousness achieves immortality.
music_user ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:13:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah this one is really dumb.
Jtt7987 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:06:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Didnt a Reddit user go crazy and disappear because he was obsessed with this theory?
RoundishSquares ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 05:31:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yep! His post history is fuckin nuts..
Link for those interested
Xudda ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:23:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sometimes I wonder.
If we live a universe that has no beginning or end--say that the "existence" of this universe is eternal--and it consists of a finite amount of energy and configurations, does that mean that we will live the same life over and over and over again for eternity after so many years once the universe ends up in the same "configuration", so to speak?
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:04:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes
leeisawesome ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:14:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a very dangerous thought to get in your head if you ever have a manic episode...
Source: Did.
alterlate ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:16:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, the John Mayer version of reality.
Your existance in this multiverse idea is a lot like Gabriel's Horn. It goes off to infinity, but it only has finite volume. So you could "exist" in some number of universes, but that number as a fraction of the total universes is decreasing quickly. Perhaps like Zeno's Paradox, you'll eventually reach the unreachable point (of total death).
Anyways, consciousness is not binary. You'd get Alzheimers/dementia and fuzz out of consciousness in all universes even if this theory held water.
Vortex_Gator ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:23:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, not fuzz out, but on the very edge of fuzzing out.
Aeon1508 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 04:31:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel like this would be easy to test. Take a gun and shoot yourself. If you experience that you live then the theory is right.
Then take a moment to feel bad for your friends and family left behind in the old universe.
Then just repeat hundreds of more times and eventually you'll be in a universe where 100 different guns have failed to kill you 100 different times in 100 different ways. Record the whole thing and make a documentary.
FruitBeef ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:17:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I honestly hope there is no after life or any sort of conscious immortality. It doesn't even make sense to think of consciousness without a brain. Everything you think is a result of your brains experiences, structure, and chemistry. If I remembered everything from a previous life that would be a problem. I have often thought that it would be bizzare to not have consciousness. I don't know what happened before I was born, but perhaps I have been conscious the whole time, in a different body. But realistically I know that my thoughts come from my physicality. So a disembodied consciousness is out of the picture. And there would be no difference between existing and not existing after death since you wouldn't remember any of it. Still cool to think about though. I remember watching pseudo science docs about consciousness being an ocean-- all connected, and the experience of consciousness is a crest in the waves.
MangaDev ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:20:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is crazy because when I was a kid I used to think that maybe our consciousness will continue somewhere else and I would never know I actually that I had died , this was before I learnt about multiverse and stuff.
The fact a theory like this exist blew my mind
LettuceWouldntFit ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:00:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was in a coma last year and I think about this a lot. It causes mass amounts of disassociation when Iโm feeling really down.
Just makes this whole experience, unreal.
IthotItoldja ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:10:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Another mind blowing aspect of this, is that the hypothesis is testable. AND if itโs true, everyone who has ever committed suicide has tested it. AND everyone who has ever committed suicide failed to die (from their perspective).
Master_Salen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:32:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is not quite accurate. Quantum Immortality theorizes that even if your consciousness dies in this timeline there will always be another timeline where your consciousness continues to persist. Quantum Immortality does not theorize that information is transferred between different timelines. So itโs possible that, even if Quantum Immortality is true, your consciousness in other timelines will remain unaware of its termination in this timeline.
IthotItoldja ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:08:17 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I didnโt say there was an awareness of termination. I said there was an awareness of a failed suicide attempt. The memory would be of a gun jamming, etc.
IthotItoldja ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:09:51 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And if a scientist was testing the theory, several hundred successive failed attempts would be consistent with the theory to a ridiculously high probability.
Master_Salen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:30:47 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That still would require information to be transmitted between different timelines, which doesnโt fall under the purview of Quantum Immortality.
IthotItoldja ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:13:23 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nope. I suspect you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the overall concept. No information need travel between timelines for what I have described.
Master_Salen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:46:09 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Once again this does not fall under Quantum Immortality. Memories of failed attempts cannot be remembered unless information is transmitted between timelines. Quantum Immortality is fundamentally untestable unless information is transmitted between timelines.
IthotItoldja ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:40:14 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thereโs no need for information to travel between universes for this idea to work.
If the subject shoots himself in the head he will die in all the universes where the gun doesnโt jam. In the universe where the gun jams, he simply lives on with the memory of the gun jamming. He can point the gun away and shoot it to see that itโs still functional, then point it back at his head and shoot again. Once again, he will die in all the universes where the gun doesnโt jam. But his conscious will continue, (self-contained and uncontaminated) in a universe where the gun jammed (again). He can repeat this ad nauseam, because the nature of infinity and probability is such that there will always be a universe in which he is saved from death by some unlikely event.
As you can see, no information in this thought experiment was transferred at any time between universes.
Master_Salen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:11:27 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not necessarily. Itโs possible that you were locked into causal loop on a single timeline, due to time travel, and therefore only actions that do not break said causality will occur. The survivors would still need to communicate information between timelines to truly test Quantum Immortality. Everything else ultimately devolves into speculation.
IthotItoldja ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:55:06 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure if u r a troll or just confused, but be yourself, and be proud!
Master_Salen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:22:50 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lack of a proper rebuttal doesnโt justify the use of ad hominem. Please structure a adequate rebuttal if you believe your ideas can withstand serious philosophical debate.
IthotItoldja ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:25:05 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For example, if a scientist attempts suicide to test the quantum immortality hypothesis, and takes a powerful handgun and shoots himself in the head. If the gun jams in one out of a hundred universes, his consciousness will continue in those, and terminate in the other 99%. He could repeat the experiment over and over, and because in a very small fraction of universes the gun will continue to jam, his conscious will continue. No information need travel between universes.
Funkyldj ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:25:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There was this one time I went swimming in a lake that was behind a friend's house around sophomore year of high school. Halfway out I started to get a cramp and thought I might drown. But somehow through steady breathing, laying on my back and paddling with one arm as the other felt numb, it felt like it wasnt me that was saving me. It was as if the universe was like "alright fuckhead this isn't how it's supposed to happen"
a_little_toaster ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:51:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Holy shit. I'm 100% sure I've never read about this, but i thought of the exact same concept some years ago.
edit: i have heard of the multiverse theory before though, so that might've gotten me on that train of thought.
hotpoodle ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:54:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Anyone remember the guy who got so caught up in this theory and his reddit account is him slowly getting more and more paranoid about it and then his last post is him saying he's gonna kill himself?
smooshie ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:58:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Divided by Infinity is a short story that deals exactly with this!
SethRogen-Not ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:26:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thereโs a sci-fi book called โDark Matterโ by Blake Crouch that deals with this stuff. Super fun read.
RetiSetGo ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:14:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Except consciousness isn't real and what we mistake as consciousness (cognition) is highly localized. Even an exact carbon copy of you standing next to you won't share the same "consciousness", let alone those in other universes.
Master_Salen ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:28:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even if there are an infinite possible universe it does not necessarily entail that all possibilities occur. For example, letโs say your relationship to the universe can be represent by a simple equation x2 = y, where x is the state of the universe and y is your resultant state. Even though the possible states of the universe are infinite and span all possible real values there is no state of the universe which results in your state being negative.
cutelilmoth ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:35:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
itโs also a sick crywolf song
nationalorion ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:45:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I read this on another thread onetime and it seriously blew my mind. Itโs such a cool concept.
moonlite11942 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:58:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This just blew my mind. No pun intended.
klopije ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:18:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You should read Dark Matter!
Bloodyfinger ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:33:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is why I'm going to live forever.
njdevilsfan24 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:40:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I didn't know a real theory about this existed. I've been telling my parents about this for years that I thought it was a good theory
Sporkfoot ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:44:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Load ze Korea FUD
yunghefner ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:34:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Didnโt some dude kill himself cause of this on reddit? I found his account a while ago but cant remember the name of it and he became very troubled over it and kept talking about suicide cause he was so mind boggled
Some_Weeaboo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:52:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What happens if you die of heart disease or something, and in the universe where you don't, your life was drastically different for a while? Do you go back to where the split was to re-live everything? Do you never get to experience what it's like to do things when you aren't going to die of heart disease in a couple years, and only the memories?
AMA_About_Rampart ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:33:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you like thinking about that stuff then you should read Permutation City by Greg Egan. The main premise of the book is that your consciousness is information, and that if it's terminated in one place or time (you die), then your consciousness seamlessly moves to another place and time. It's an incredible book.. Especially the second half.
PROOFxx ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:06:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fuuuuuuuck
ScratchOnTheWall ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:22:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Came up with this concept on my own before realizing it was actually a thing. The only problem I see is that even though your mind would persist across the path where you survive, there's nothing to prevent you from getting stuck on a path where your mind is intact but where you're seriously maimed as a result of your actions. So, let's say you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger. There's an infinite number of universes where you're dead, an infinite number of universes where the gun jams, but also an infinite number of universes where the gun fires and leaves you paralyzed from the waist down with your consciousness intact.
CaptainDefect ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:23:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Holy shit I've had this exact thought before. I didn't realize there was a name for it
thewickedgoat ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:56:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I struck upon the reddit-thread where a guy killed himself over this thought experiment.
It's sooo bizare, yet it seems plausible.
It's very interesting to think about, especially given the multiverse theory basically says that for each given event, all possible outcomes will split into it's own universe. Try to do the math on that for each action you do....
Sceptezard ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:54:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You should watch Mr. Nobody
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:21:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like the idea of someone testing this theory and constantly having their attempts at suicide thwarted by near miraculous means.
ParadigmTossOut ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:12:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The book Anathem tackles quantum immortality toward the end of the book. Great read, if a little long.
AnfrageUndNachgebot ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:35:20 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So Elvis is alive!
AussieWorker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:51:53 on April 20, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ohh, that's delicious. that your life flashing before your eyes isn't your life, it is a review of the one you now live.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:29:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How does this make you immortal?
Because if you didnโt die toa gun shot you would eventually die later
ineedanewthrowawy ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:45:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The theory is that if you got into a car crash that could kill you, you will always experience the reality where you survived. The only way to actually die in this scenario is old age, which isn't explained.
Ethandrul ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:15:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It can be explained thusly....time of birth is subject to the same rules as cause of death. Meaning over the multiverae you are being born and dying eternally
oddsbluestones ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:01:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So does this mean that my consciousness persists over an infinite number of universes, shrinking by a small fraction every time I die in one of them? That seems hard to argue
SpookyLlama ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:45:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Infinite universes means infinite
2angsty4u ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:44:58 on April 15, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Except that the the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't predict infinite universes, only an awful lot of them.
ortho_engineer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:22:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Quantum Mechanics teaches us that there are infinite possibilities for universes in existence. So based on the multiverse theory it is entirely plausible that the there is a version of the universe where the moon is larger than Saturn. There is also a plausible universe where Saturn is larger that the moon. Following this logic, it is also possible, if not probable, that there is a universe in which my penis is the largest object in existence.
That universe being the one in which you and I reside.
ChronicNova ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:05:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Came here to post this. This is my favorite theory
PietNederwiet ยท 288 points ยท Posted at 13:56:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As someone else said how the universe came out of 'nothing' and what also blows my mind is what's beyond the border of space. If it has an end, how does it keep expanding into nothing? If one could go faster than it can expend(I know you never can), what would be there if you pass the border?
JohnLemonBot ยท 217 points ยท Posted at 18:14:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I find it strange how physics is specifically set to never allow us to do this.
9bananas ยท 96 points ยท Posted at 23:36:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
easy: render distance is at a premium!
bonediggerninja ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:15:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
r/outside
themagicchicken ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:38:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Probably because of bitcoin mining. :P
BurgerOfCheese ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:09:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why not? I'm genuinely asking since I don't know anything in this area.
gavmo ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 03:13:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Basically, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light (I think the universe also theoretically has no physical speed limit), but nothing can travel faster than light, so therefore we will never be able to travel fast enough to reach outside the universe.
misa_fierce ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 05:17:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So I donโt expect you to know the answer to this but for some reason, even tho Iโve read this before and never questioned it, it suddenly really bothers me that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light yet at the same time, the universe is doing just that. How?
contrivedpanda ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 07:57:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The theoretical speed limit inside the universe is the speed of light in a vacuum, which comes from special relativity, it was set as a solution to some problems in astronomy in the early part of the 20th century, most of our understanding of cosmology and astrophysics comes from it, and so far no experiment has shown otherwise. There are many theories predicting faster than light particles, however no significant evidence has been found. Outside of the universe talking about speed doesn't really make sense, theres no time or distance to measure it there. Our understanding of physics is limited to inside our universe and we cannot travel outside it to find out. We can measure the expansion rate of the visible universe though, which is Hubble's constant and gives a rate of about 67km per second per million parsecs.
gavmo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:42:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
well I'm pretty sure the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, as for how fast it's actually moving I'm not sure
2angsty4u ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:31:38 on April 15, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'll give this a go, though I warn you that my understanding of GR is somewhat undergrad.
What does it mean to "travel"? It seems obvious that what we intuitively mean by "travel" is described in the formal mathematical language of physics as motion of an object within space: activity which will make an object appear at a different point in space at a different time. With this interpretation, it is impossible for an object to "travel" faster than light.
In the world of our intuitions, this is the only way in which two objects can increase their separation. However, the formalism of physics provides us with another means: in addition to objects travelling in the spacetime, the spacetime itself can change, adding space between the objects in a manner which seems to carry the objects along. Intuitively this seems to bear a strong resemblance to the "travelling" I've just described - the objects are getting progressively further and further apart, after all. But think about how we would describe it within the mathematical language of physics. The spacetime cannot be "moving", as "motion" can only be described relative to the spacetime itself. We find that two phenomena which appear almost identical to our intuitions, and indeed to our eyes - that of two objects getting further and further apart over time - are attributable to two entirely different physical processes which we would have to describe entirely differently in any mathematical description of the situation. And in only one of these two processes is there such a thing as a "maximum speed" (strictly speaking, in only one of these two processes is there such a thing as a "speed").
The question, I think, cuts to the heart of a very interesting issue about how we relate our physical intuitions to the concepts used within physics. General Relativity supplies us with conclusions which strike our intuitions like flat-out self-contradictions: that two objects can get further apart without moving, for instance. Really, I think, this is an issue of translation: our concepts, and the words that denote them such as "position" and "motion" and "speed" and "space", are not designed for use in curved space-times. Physicists will still use these words, but they have actually carefully redefined them all with the aid of laborious mathematical derivation from the General Relativistic equations. And it is not clear that they mean the same thing at all when used in that context to what they mean when used by us in our everyday lives. And the phrase "nothing can travel faster than light" is true only when all those words are defined in the formal language of General Relativity, not when they're defined in the language of our everyday intuition.
SuperMohrenkopf ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 09:38:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Until we perhaps reach a point we we're technologically so advanced we can surpass the laws or the universe or change them. Then we'll have to fear for our existence though.
thewickedgoat ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:06:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Faster than light travel is possible - but not in local space. Nothing can physically move faster than light, and you will never experience anything passing by you faster than light.
The acceleration of the universe is space expanding everywhere in every direction - this means that in our local space, we are not moving or experiencing anything that is faster than light. General Relativity explains this.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:50:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because even the smartest people in the world dont realize that nothing is actually just nothing.
jaywalk98 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 04:47:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn you cracked the code here's your Nobel prize.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:02:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why thank you.
JustNeedANameee ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 22:13:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, the universe is infinite as far we know and if somethingโs infinite it doesnโt have to expand into something else, it can just expand into itself.
Itโs annoyingly counter-intuitive but it kind of makes sense if you think about it
ElectroPositive ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:42:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Okay, but what if the universe is finite, but boundless? Much like the surface area of a sphere has no bounds and no center, our universe might exist in far more than the 3 spatial dimensions we are capable of perceiving. Perhaps a "straight line" is really curved along a fourth dimension that loops back around, and if we traveled in a straight line through the universe for billions of years, we would eventually return to our present location.
JustNeedANameee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:13:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I definitely think thatโs also plausible. Personally I think what limits us being able to make a definitive statement is our lack of knowledge of physics. Perhaps weโll never know though, we could literally be limited by the laws of physics as to how much we can actually find out.
Itโs so interesting to think about I love it
tdrichards74 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:50:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I commented on the parent comment with a bit more depth if you want to check it out. I think it adds a little more depth to your comment.
helmholtzfreeenergy ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 21:23:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no border. The universe is flat and infinite, space is expanding. That means that things that aren't bound together like atoms (via the strong and electromagnetic forces) and galaxy clusters (via gravity) are getting further away from each other.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:41:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
helmholtzfreeenergy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:53:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When we say flat, we mean when spacetime is scaled back by one dimension. A flat universe would be a 3-dimensional slice of 4-dimensional spacetime, representing the universe at a particular time. Humans can only visualise this as a 2-dimensional slice of our 3-dimensional world.
bluesam3 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:41:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe is (probably approximately) flat, and probably finite. That doesn't imply having borders.
Neodrivesageo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:27:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What do you guys mean the universe is flat? Like a pancake?
helmholtzfreeenergy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:02:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sort of, we mean when you take a slice of spacetime at a particular time and end up with a 3-dimensional plane. Humans have a hard time visualising this so we scale it back a dimension: a 2-dimensional slice of our 3-dimensional world.
If the universe had positive curvature (not flat) it would be the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional sphere, which when scaled back again is where the balloon analogy that everyone uses comes from.
watCryptide ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:36:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When Im reading this I feel like Im trying learning something impossible to understand.
Neodrivesageo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:02:02 on June 16, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So would it be easier to travel to say the top of the universe as opposed to the edge?
bluesam3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:36:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We mean "without large scale average curvature". Saying exactly what that means is hard without messing around with a lot of maths, but roughly it means that any sufficiently large triangle has angles that add up to approximately (for a precise definition of "approximately") 180 degrees (so like triangles drawn on a piece of paper, rather than ones drawn on a sphere, where the angles can be much bigger). Interestingly, because of general relativity, you need to go to really big triangles before this starts working: there are explicit triangles that you can draw inside our galaxy that don't have angles that add up to 180 degrees (this is because the gravity of stars, planets, and black holes bends space around them).
helmholtzfreeenergy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:58:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Most cosmologists believe that space has infinite extension, because we're pretty sure it's flat and without boundary. If it's spherical however then you're correct, it would be finite.
bluesam3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:30:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Flat and without boundary does not imply infinite extent. The n-torus is flat, compact, and without boundary.
helmholtzfreeenergy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:41:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh yeah I forgot about things like toruses, good point. A doughnut universe would be pretty whack.
tdrichards74 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:49:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Space isnโt expanding into anything (according to current theory) but space itself is expanding into itself. The best example I can think of is the mathematical concept of infinity. Infinity + 1 is still infinity. Infinity + infinity is still infinity. There are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, but there is also an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 2, and by definition, the first is larger than the second, but added (or multiplied, etc) together, are still infinity.
Space as we understand it is infinite, and expanding, but isnโt expanding into anything, but is still infinite. Does that make sense? This is where relativity comes in. Itโs still fucken weird, but thatโs the concept.
PietNederwiet ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:21:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well. kinda and kinda not. So there is an infinite amount of numbers, meaning that space is infinite in that sense. But if you would look at infinite differently(something with no end). I know numbers can go on forever, but does space really go on forever, or is it just so immensly big that we call it infinite?
tdrichards74 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:57:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We have no idea. The edge observable universe is is the furthest away starting point that light can have, and still reach earth within the time frame of the universe existing (accounting for movement, acceleration of expansion, etc). To use it is effectively infinite, but thereโs a wall we canโt see past because if technological limitations and physics.
To put it a different way, itโs been observed that objects moving away from us are moving faster than they should be, and are accelerating. The answer to this is that not only is the object moving, the space between earth and the object is expanding.
Thereโs a 2 dimensional experiment for this. Draw point A and point B an inch apart on the surface of a deflated balloon, and then inflate it. The surface of the balloon between A and B represents our universe.
PietNederwiet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:04:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The way you explain it make sense now, how other people explained it to me it didn't at first. But if everything moves further from each other, that means the universe will 'snap' someday? Since you can only stretch things so far. Fun knowing that atoms will at one point fall apart.
tdrichards74 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:18:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Glad I could help.
And thatโs definitely a theory. Iโve heard the multiverse theory described as a boiling pot of water, with each bubble being a universe popping in and out of existence.
kiwikoopa ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:08:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโve always wondered if you can circumnavigate the universe.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:18:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Imagine walking along the surface of an expanding balloon. Where is the edge?
EvanSweet97 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:07:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes but the balloon still is expanding into something, because its diameter and volume increase.
PointyOintment ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:19:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's an analogy
9bananas ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:37:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
not a terribly satisfying one...
bluesam3 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:39:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unless you're happy with talking about abstract manifolds that aren't embedded in some Euclidean space, it's the best you're going to get.
9bananas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:47:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
show mercy. the last analogy didn't satisfy me.
i feel like the next one is gonna hurt my brain...
YouHaveToGoHome ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:43:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There isn't a great one; the idea is that objects (the surface of the balloon) can exist and expand without needing to be in or refer to an external space (our 3D world). Here's my take on it:
Imagine instead of a balloon you live in a 1D world which loops back on itself (the circumference of a circle). Every day you travel between your house (point A) and your... vacation house (point B) at the speed of light, which you know is the maximum possible speed. Over the years, you notice it takes you longer and longer to get to work despite traveling at a constant speed (in this 1D universe, you are a superstar physicist as well), so you deduce that the universe is expanding: the distance is literally getting larger!
How might we describe this? Well, one way we can do this is by "embedding" your 1D world into the 2D plane: we assign every point in the world to some coordinates in the 2D plane and note that it makes a circle with some "growing" radius. We could just as well make it a "spinning" circle in 3D space (with the axis of rotation going through a diameter of the circle) and assign some coordinates, or put even put your 1D world on the surface of a (growing) sphere. Ask an observer in each of these scenarios (the 2D world, the 3D world, and the spherical surface world) and they'll claim the circle is expanding into different things (the 2D person will claim its expanding into their plane, the 3D person will claim its expanding in space, and the sphere-person will say its just sitting on the sphere doing nothing!). All while you in your 1D world are busy going back and forth between A and B without worrying about who is right.
The point here is that the 1D world exists and expands independently of its embedding in the 2D, 3D, or spherical-surface world. There isn't a "thing" it needs to be expanding into; the expansion is simply an expression that the distances inside the 1D world are getting larger (thanks to the fixed speed of light). This is analogous to what's going on in our universe: it doesn't need to expand into higher-dimensional space in order for distances to grow; it exists independently.
bluesam3 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:21:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This one isn't an analogy so much as it's the actual explanation: we're used to thinking of object as being embedded in some larger ambient space, usually Euclidean space, because the particular bit of the universe that we happen to live in happens to look roughly like a bit of Euclidean space, so the objects that we normally see are all embedded in such a space. But there's no need for that in general: a maniforld (by which we mean "something that happens to look mostly like Euclidean space if you only look at a little bit of it at a time") doesn't need to be embedded in anything: you can have one that isn't inside anything else at all, it's just its own thing.
For the expansion thing, it might help to not think of it as expansion per se: you can equivalently think of it as the definition of "distance" getting smaller, so that things are more distance apart.
daniel14vt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:30:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://xkcd.com/895/
Kevl17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:41:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The 2D surface is exapanding because the balloon exists in a 3D space. If you imagine the 3D universe actually exists in a 4D state, then our perception of the 3D part expanding into itself is because of a 4th dimension we cannot perceive.
EvanSweet97 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:04:26 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ahh that makes sense! Thanks!
PietNederwiet ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:09:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There has to be room around the balloon for it to be able to expand further. What would be on the other side if you were able to go through the surface of the ballloon?
humodx ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:08:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe would be the surface itself, moving away or towards the center of the balloon would be like walking in the 4th dimension
bluesam3 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:40:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's only because you're considering the embedding of the balloon into real space. The answer to your final question is simple: there is no "other side".
ZyraReflex ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:56:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Furthermore, if I recall correctly, going completely in one direction with no deviation, you will end up exactly where you started. I.e. if I launched a spaceship in one direction and I wasn't impeded or redirected by gravity, I would "eventually" end up at earth (not really, because our place in the Galaxy is constantly shifting, never mind the galaxy's own movement, but you get the idea).
Edit: I have no clue where I read the above, but here is a similar explanation
trollcitybandit ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:55:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If this is true all the galaxies that are expanding away from each other right now will eventually meet up again and cause another sort of explosion, or maybe implosion?
Kevl17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:39:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No because the reason they are moving away from each other is because the universe is getting bigger. So as they move away, the point where they "loop back" is getting further away too
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:57:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right, so it's infinite.
AmadeusMop ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:31:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That would be true if the universe were (positively) curved, but we're pretty sure it's flat.
deeeezil ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:26:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This. The more I think about it, the more headaches I get. The concept of beginning of time and endless universe just does not make sense
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:37:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs curved bro.
martixy ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 21:18:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually we've pretty well established it is FLAT.
Smitten_the_Kitten ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:21:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't it like blowing bubbles in your milk with a straw? I thought I remember reading that somewhere. The universe just looks like our brains under a microscope.
martixy ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:33:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
None of this made sense.
Otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_(cosmology)
Smitten_the_Kitten ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:34:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Okee dokee thanks. Whatever I read must have been incorrect.
RapistBunny ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:21:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
dont think of it as a plain. Think of it as a baloon is inflating and ypu can only travel along the surface of the baloon. It will keep expanding with you on it, but if you move faater than it expands, than youll endup on the "other side" of the universe because the border and the end are nonexistent.
bluesam3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:39:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no border. Neither expanding nor being finite implies having borders.
rufi83 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:24:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why does the universe have to come from nothing? Furthermore, why does something have to have a starting point? Why can't the universe just ALWYS have been and will always be? No starting or end point necessary
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:49:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you went past the border there would probably be nothing.
Kuhnmeisterk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:57:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now imagine this equally valid model of the universe expanding. Its not getting bigger, but everything inside it is getting smaller in the same amount of space there always has been. We'd have no way of knowing the difference but it put such a weird new image in your mind.
McLegendd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:19:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs not expanding into anything. As far as we know, as has been said below, the universe is infinite and the expansion is just points getting farther and farther apart.
C137_Rick_Sanchez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:04:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well ... some physicists used to think that on the largest scales, space-time was curved. Meaning if you traveled in a straight line long enough, you would eventually just wind up back where you started. In this universe, there would be no real "border". But the volume could still expand forever.
But that's pretty much been proven false at this point. On the largest scales, space time is pretty damned flat, it turns out.
The inability to picture how something can "expand into nothing" is a limitation that we have because of our difficulty in thinking beyond our 3 (or 4) dimentional lives. It's expanding into another dimension that we don't understand. Maybe it's the "5th" or "8th" dimension or whatever ... we just can't grasp it because we have a hard time picturing anything more than 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time.
PietNederwiet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:19:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Like the tesseract? Or however they call it. It's this cube scaped thing expanding in each other over and over to give a rough view of how seeing in more dimensions would be like.
C137_Rick_Sanchez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:10:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Kind of. A tesseract is a 3D "shadow" of a 4d object. Kind of like how you can draw a cube, buts really only a 2D "shadow" of a 3d object.
PietNederwiet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:24:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's that you can only see things a dimension lower than you're living in right? We live in the 4th dimension and can only see in the 3rd
C137_Rick_Sanchez ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:45:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dont know that what youre saying is necessarily a proven rule ... but as far as I can tell, yeah, that seems to be the case.
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:20:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The thing is it must be infinite then, infinite nothingness that is, which makes sense when you really think about it. Nothing is also only "something" to us because we have a word for it, or an idea of it.
PietNederwiet ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:18:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The problem i'm having with that is, ift's it nothingness, why is it infinite? If it's really nothing its nothing.
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:59:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's infinite because anything could be placed in that nothingness at any point?
Kevl17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:42:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Space isnt nothing though. Space still has dimension, and volume. It's measurable. Nothingness wouldnt be measurable.
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:56:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Either way the rate it's expanding is infinite. If the universe has kept expanding this rapidly there are obviously no barriers preventing it from doing so.
TheHardWalker ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:39:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As always, The Simpsons have the answer.
_virgin4life_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:01:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Try to see using your elbow instead of your eyes . Dats whatโs out there
Sir_Troglodyte ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:10:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's easier to accept if you think reality expands instead of the universe.
Reality expands into "not reality", so more space between stuff becomes real.
Typhoonjig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:16:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know if you can be "beyond" space as "beyond" is a way to place something IN space. I don't think that you would ever pass the "border" also, you may create space by your very presence.
aft2001 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:46:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Perhaps the universe is infinite, and the expansion of space is almost like space "spilling" into... nothingness. Much like spilled milk on a flat table flattens and matches the shape of the surface it's on.
Megafeto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:15:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe is not expanding, rather the space inside itself. Grab a balloon that is not inflated, and put dots all over it, now inflate it. There are the same amount of dots, and the balloon hasn't gained mass. The dots are just further away from each other.
Prondox ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:45:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are also cold spots in the universe. These spots are not actual cold as we interpret cold. They are void of matter. These spots in the universe don't have matter in them just like most of excistense. The matter that is our universe just expands and fills the nothingness.
ONE_MAN_MILITIA ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:56:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Out of absolute nothingness comes everything
Shadowyugi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:21:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It expands till it reaches the source wall, which is basically the prison of old gods and leviathans alike.
jonesg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:39:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It had to come from something. Matter can be neither be created or destroyed
Beattz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:16:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You'd think because for something to expand, something else must be able to contract (like, when you expand a balloon the air around it gets contracted, technically). If there's nothing to contract beyond the expansion of the universe then perhaps the universe contracts itself while it expands?
dragonthemagicpuff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:01:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's always hurt my brain. If there's literally the epitome of nothing after the edge of the universe then how is there anything for it to expand into? Unless it's some weird ass concept that we can't understand, like it's warping the definition of "expansion" to make room for more of itself?
AussieWorker ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:49:54 on April 20, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If a balloon had even the tiniest amount of gas in it and you exposed it to a vacuum, it would expand to fill that void of nothing.. at least that's how I imagine the universe is filling out.
baabaaaam ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:43:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's the one that kills me every now and then. What's behind it? The Universe is expanding into what?
PointyOintment ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:21:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itself. Nothing. There isn't anything outside it, and it has no border, as far as we can tell. Space itself, the thing that allows objects to be at different locations including inside and outside each other, is getting larger.
GUDDIQUNDAHEAboi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:47:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But that sounds fucking boring
MagMaggaM ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:50:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Presuming you pass the border, there would quite literally be nothing. In all likelihood, the instant you exited the universe, you would cease to exist, as you cannot exist if tehre is nowhere for you to exist in. Or, is one were to take a theist view, as God created the universe, it must be outside of it, abd therefore, once you exit the universe (presuming you survive and remain sane), you would either find God, another of its creations, or an inbetween point of its creations (e.g. between universes in the multiverse), or sone combination of these.
Sheevy_Boi ยท -10 points ยท Posted at 20:54:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That "Nothing" is God
theyellowmeteor ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:02:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's religion in a nutshell. People don't know what's going on, so they say it's God to feel better.
BabysitterSteve ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:47:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I watched some videos and there was an interesting topic talking about the Big Bang and God. How can we say that the Big Bang or God were a beginning? They must have came from something as well. We can't just say something came from nothing, that nothing must have came from something as well. Even if we get answers to the Big Bang and God, new questions arise. How did they came to be?
In the end, the Big Bang and God are a same thing. One is the reason we came to be without any morals and another is a reason we came to be but has a personality and morals.
It's really interesting haha. Because humanity follows this concept that there must be an end or some border, but we are divided by interpreting differently one same thing. It's crazy.
On the topic of God himself. I'm not religious but I do believe there is something more out there and there are laws that we don't understand and ever will. I have nothing against people who are religious and neither should anyone else, as long as they are good people who get some sort of reason off their faith.
But people who are extremists and kill for their faith... That's something else yes and fuck them.
siccandthicc ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:32:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, just put an entire element of society in a โnutshellโ.
No, I donโt believe in God simply because the universe requires explanation. Honestly, the Christian belief is less that God explains the universe, and moreso that the universe explains God. This is exemplified in Romans 1.
theyellowmeteor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:21:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Romans 1 is a homophobic rant, what are you talking about?
MadeBrazen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:38:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Taking a scientific standpoint demands that you must leave room for the possibility of 'God'.
Kevl17 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:45:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No it doesn't. Because if it did you would have to leave room for the possibility of anything. Literally anything that any madman comes up with. Imagine trying to form a theory with this hanging over you. You'd have to design an experiment to test for literally any wild idea that could or does exist. Science wouldn't work.
MadeBrazen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:55:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well let's test that. In the beginning, all matter and energy in the universe was contained in an infinitesimally small space called a singularity. Why?
Because a gargantuan cosmic entity that looks like a horse but sounds like a fish accidently stood on our universe.
Can this be disproved?
Kevl17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:44:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It cannot be disproved. Just as god cannot be disproved. Which is why it is useless and has nothing to do with science. This is why science cannot leave a possibility for god, because god as a concept is incompatible with science due to the fact it's not falsefiable and is no more valid than what you just said.
MadeBrazen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:42:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Modern science relies on the acceptance that we don't know everything. I'm just trying to say that no one has the right to deny the possibility of 'God' because we don't know enough about the entirety of existence. The human need to quantify through testing and falsifying can offer no credence when you do not know what it is you are testing!
I would say that science is the art of understanding, and there is much we may never understand. To be so proud to state 'There is no God' is defiance at best and ignorance at worst.
Kevl17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:00:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The scientific method relies on falsifiable hypotheses. God is not falsifiable. Therefore the idea of god is not something science can ever prove. It is irrelevant to science. And science does not have to accept the possibility anymore than the possibility of any other random idea anyone wants to come up with which is just as incompatible with science.
Science is not what you seem to think it is.
MadeBrazen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:12:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is the unknown also irrelevant to science?
helmholtzfreeenergy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:28:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Prove it
tavis73 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:53:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Prove it isn't.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:03:46 on April 15, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The burden of proof lies with those making a claim, not with those dismissing it.
Sheevy_Boi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:53:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
First I should clarify my definition of God, which is "The Uncreated Creator". I don't believe in the Christian God, Allah, or Jewish God, etc. He is what created everything. This means that before him nothing could exist to create him, therefore he is uncreated. Without a god it would be impossible for anything to exist. Everything has a cause. That cause is the effect of another cause, and so on. Eventually something had to be caused by a god, otherwise you have an endless chain. Some will say maybe the universe is infinite, to which I say "maybe", but a chandelier held up by endless chains in a room that is also endless and always 1 chain away from the chandelier will fall.
Milbso ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:56:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why can't the universe itself be the 'first cause'? If there can be an uncreated creator then why is it more reasonable to believe in a god than an uncreated universe?
It seems to me that to claim that the universe is just everything and came from nowhere makes equal sense (If not a little more sense) as to claim that the universe was made by a god which is just everything and came from nowhere.
Sheevy_Boi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:11:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then the universe by definition would be God
bluesam3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:41:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then your word "God" is meaningless and useless, and bears no resemblance to the common usage of that term.
BabysitterSteve ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:56:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No it's not. Search up God and Big Bang.
Big Bang is a universe or a part of it that made us be, God is the same concept but with personality stuck to it.
They're the same but differ in morality.
bluesam3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:31:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, no. Sticking a personality on is a massive extra assumption that you're pulling out of your arse.
BabysitterSteve ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:53:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not pulling anything out of my arse. I read a great article which compared all the things in space and how it affects religion. And replying like that won't make your point any more valid. I'm not religious, I just said it's an interesting comparison. And honestly, I couldn't care less if someone believes in God. It's their choice. I'm fine with as long as you don't throw it in my face and tell me I should believe as well. I have many friends who are religious and amazing. :)
_luxicon__ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:39:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Okay but the universe is infinite. Therefore nothing can exist outside of it. Which would mean the universe cannot have a God that lives outside of it. For God to exist, they must live within the universe. So what did God stand on when the universe was being created?
BabysitterSteve ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:54:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A few comments higher I posted an interesting topic on the beginning. God and Big Bang are the same thing. On just has morals and personality stapled to it and another one doesn't.
Even if we get answers to them, new questions arise as to how they came to be and what's beyond that.
And just saying there was nothing before or there was something is stupid. We will never know. At least not us and many other generations after us. And do we really need to? We clearly have our part here on Earth to do.
Also, I'm not religious but I don't hate on people who are. If someone chooses to believe in God then why not? If it gives them strenght than so be it. But people who use religion as an excuse to be rude to others and kill others can go fuck themselves.
siccandthicc ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:35:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs hard to believe thereโs not significant bias going on here, when he got downvotes for saying โitโs Godโ and got upvotes when he explained it wasnโt the God of the Bible or Koran.
jacksontysonjordanG6 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:01:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You cannot say โeverything has a causeโ and then God is eternal. An eternal God negates โeverything has a causeโ.
Sheevy_Boi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:10:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My point is the rules don't apply to God.
jacksontysonjordanG6 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:30:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And here we have our breakdown in logical conversation.
Sheevy_Boi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:32:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe doesn't work if nothing can be without a cause. There could not be anything. My point is that God is what doesn't need a cause.
jacksontysonjordanG6 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:44:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Let me cut to the chase here. (And no hostility here, just discussion.)
We know the universe exists. We do not know God exists. God exists in theory, not science.
So the universe got here because either, A) it was always here or B) it was created. A is possible since we have proof of the universe, and our knowledge may one day prove this.
As for B)...you have no proof outside of your theories of God. Before you prove that God created this universe, you must prove he exists. But you are using he exists because he created the universe as your proof.Do you see how your logic is circular?
Sheevy_Boi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:49:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In order for logic to be circular, it needs to say A because of B and B because of a A. I am not saying that God created the universe because he exists. I'm not against the idea of the universe always existing. This, under the definition I gave earlier, makes the universe God. I have no problem with saying that the universe itself is God. By the way, I appreciate the no hostility thing. A lot of people take this kind of debate the wrong way.
jacksontysonjordanG6 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:05:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're welcome man! It's all good. Glad we both stuck around to discuss some more.
And ok, I see your point. Does God/Universe have an intelligence to you?
Sheevy_Boi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:19:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think so. This is something I'm less sure of, but still think. It seems like everything is designed to work together. Some animals are perfect partners to work together, etc. This is really only saying that it's more likely than definitely though.
NateTheGreat1211 ยท -10 points ยท Posted at 22:16:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok I know that most of Reddit isnโt religious, but that โnothingโ is God, and you canโt disprove it. You have no answer for a question but then when an answer that makes sense is presented, you just blow it off because you donโt believe in it. I get if you arenโt religious, but you bash Christians etc. for believing in a God and then have no better answer yourself. Sure we canโt prove there is a God, but that is what faith is
bluesam3 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:42:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lack of understanding of mathematics is not an argument.
PietNederwiet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:17:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't bash christians or any religion at all. I respect peoples belief. I however do not believe. You can't disporve there is a god, but you can't prove there is one either, therefore i am agnostic.
NateTheGreat1211 ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 22:22:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah sorry that sounded like it was directed at you. What I mean is most of Reddit acts like Christians have unsupportable faith, but they have faith that there is no God and cannot back that up anymore than any religion can.
jacksontysonjordanG6 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:58:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for sharing your opinion here. I think just pure making a few assumptions that are a bit misguided. And since we both have some interest around this topic Iโll chime in.
As an ex Christian, I understand the premises Christians bring to the table on this topic. It seems youโre bringing the same flaws with your statement.
Youโre assertion that โthat nothing is Godโ is the classic God of the Gaps statement. Which posits that things humans do not know can be chalked up to God. The problem with this logic is that as humans gain more knowledge those โgapsโ that you once attributed to God, evaporate. Humans used to give God credit for lightning.
Next, you suggest that Redditors bash Christianity for believing in a God and then have no better answer. I say if you say you can credibly believe that God created the universe, then you can credibly say the universe has no beginning. Either way you make an assumption but at least you can prove the universe is here. Everyone agrees about this. You can only prove your God to people who believe in that God.
And lastly, the Christian god can be simply debunked on historical, scientific, and other empirical methods. So to continue to believe in the spite of facts and to champion โfaithโ over reason is why Reddit in general says Christians have an unsupportable faith.
Ok and lastly lastly, you say that atheists cannot back up that there is no God. But theists are the ones making the claim of a God. Atheists are not making a claim. We are saying we dont believe the theistic arguments. The burden to prove god isnโt on us. Itโs on theists.
siccandthicc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:29:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt know what you mean in saying that the Christian God can be โsimply debunkedโ. I really donโt see how there could be evidence that definitively disproves the God of the Bible.
Furthermore, a quote.
โIf Iโm wrong about God, then I wasted my life. If youโre wrong about God, then you wasted your eternity.โ
jacksontysonjordanG6 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:49:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So far we have the god of gaps fallacy combined with an appeal to emotion and capped off with you submitting pascalโs wager. Maybe the Bible is correct when it says there is nothing new under the sun.
Iโll keep this short (and not hostile), an absolute statement is either absolutely correct or absolutely wrong. The Christian faith makes many absolute statements. Many of these statements can be proven absolutely incorrect. None of the statements can be proven to be absolutely correct.
jacksontysonjordanG6 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:55:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And furthermore a quote
1 Cor 15
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
trollcitybandit ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:07:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sad but most likely true.
siccandthicc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:26:03 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, and if you keep reading, he says that Christ has in fact been raised. Thatโs what we believe, and there is evidence that it happened.
siccandthicc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:25:15 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Again, youโre saying these statements can be disproven, and providing no examples. And just giving my statement a name doesnโt discredit it. It is still absolutely true.
jacksontysonjordanG6 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:40:05 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Let me ask you, how do you know it is absolutely true? That he raised from the dead.
jacksontysonjordanG6 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:00:07 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hereโs a few off the top of the head:
Noahโs ark is a scientific impossibility. It defies science on just about every scientific field. Not my problem to disprove something that clearly couldnโt happen.
There is no evidence of Jews in Egypt as slaves. There is no evidence of there being a mass exodus. With the amount of people wandering in the desert as the Bible describes, there would have been enormous amounts of mass graves, artifacts, etc. we have zero evidence of this. Plus if you had the slaves in rows of ten, with four feet of space between them as they walked...that would be 81 miles long lol. Do you really believe there was a 81 mile long group of wandering Jews in the desert?
We know there were other civilizations alive during the time of the supposed flood. Mesopotamia, Sumerians Egyptians, Incas, etc
We have records of nations with diverse languages during the the of the supposed Towel of Babel. Even your own Bible describes the โsons of hamโ and โthe sons of shemโ having their own language in the chapter before the Tower of Babel. But youโll probably repeat some Christian apopolgy about it not being in chronological order. *Suuuuure...
We have no corroborating evidence of the sun stopping in the sky during Joshuaโs supposed battle.
Davidโs army was supposedly 1.2M strong. During a time when the worlds population was only 50M. In present day numbers thatโs akin to having an army bigger than Russiaโs population. Again, there is no corroborating evidence of this.
Jesus and his disciples visited more than 50 towns (a truly conservative estimate) and supposedly performed miracles including healing blind and deaf and paralyzed folks. And raised dead people. But we have no eye witness records after 2000 years of searching.
Paul says in Romans that he went from Jerusalem to Greece performing signs and wonders. And just like Jesus and his disciples we have found no one making any note of this. In the Roman Empire.
trollcitybandit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:06:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's some God who wouldn't allow someone to heaven without believing in him with no evidence at all eh?
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:01:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is no different really than saying someone is guilty of a crime even if we have no proof of it at all and not a single actual sighting, just a strong faith and sneaking suspiscion.
cowsrock1 ยท 2043 points ยท Posted at 14:13:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
last Thursdayism is pretty interesting. Basically, the universe could have been created last Thursday and we all just have planted memories about anything before then.
[deleted] ยท 1813 points ยท Posted at 15:56:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Could have put better memories, sheesh.
TheCSKlepto ยท 582 points ยท Posted at 18:28:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We'll try again this Thursday
bepseh ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:46:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck no. This Thuraday im off
JTP2_Olliekay ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:10:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
it's my birthday this Thursday!
bfiffer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:13:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It sounds like its everyone's birthday this thursday
StickySarah ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:17:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The memories might not say that next week
(Happy IRL Cake Day)
JTP2_Olliekay ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:18:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
oh. :(
Arcanehavok ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:14:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
it's your birthday every Thursday. Same with me and them. All of us on reddit. WE ARE ONE.
krakenlolatu ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:24:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
WIPE DAY!
TheCSKlepto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:04:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have another hot-ish comment involving shitting so I thought this was commenting on that. Gave me a chuckle to see it wasn't
IKROWNI ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:00:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You mean last Thursday?
TheCSKlepto ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:04:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It'll be last Thursday eventually
gingerroute ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:25:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So much opportunity and I still can't get over ripping my pants during a speech.
Vex_Miserables ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:18:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
AMA needed
gingerroute ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:24:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not needed, but most definitely giving a final project presentation. Dropped my papers and ripper right through my pants. It was absolutely audible and I was not wearing appropriate underwear to have a hole in the ass & crotch of my pants. It wasn't just a small rip, somehow, my pant leg was pretty much falling off at the seams and I had to finish the presentation for another 10 minutes all while a nice breeze was rolling through the room. I walked out laughing and covering myself with said presentation packet.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:28:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sir, I feel very sorry for you. The last 10 minutes must have been shit.
Shinbiku ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:41:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dark City is an amazing movie on this concept. If you haven't seen it check it out. Probably the movie that got me interested in philosophy.
seemypinky ยท 220 points ยท Posted at 17:45:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Last Fridayism works better for me
metagloria ยท 215 points ยท Posted at 18:11:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm a procrastinator so I prefer Next Thursdayism
Merrilin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:47:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The world doesn't exist yet, but will be created next Thursday. Where does that leave us?
Dr_Mottek ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:56:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
With enough time to muck about, because the release version will probably come with a complete rollback, so why bother.
FlyingRectus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:54:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
so its a cycle every Thursday?
stone500 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:40:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Last Wednesdayism, my dudes!
PM_ME_UR_COCK_GIRL ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:22:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Last Christmasism for me, thanks.
OrezRekirts ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:42:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
rebecca black ruined that
clutchheimer ยท 117 points ยท Posted at 16:57:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is really no different than Descartes and his evil genius.
EighthScofflaw ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 21:01:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Descartes's evil demon fools one's perceptions, not their memories. It's similar, but different.
clutchheimer ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 21:59:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The evil genius may have implanted all memories that are within your mind. That is an important part of the thought exercise. This is why the only thing you can be sure is real, is that which is occurring right now.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:04:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was taught that the evil genius only fucks up your mathematical equations so that you can't trust yourself as you do math. So the evil genius's "job" isn't implanting false memories.
Also I learned that Descartes thought that you can't even be sure that right now is real because you can always possibly be in a dream. The only thing you can be sure of is that you yourself exist.
SHIVER_ME_WHISKERS ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:19:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The evil genius (or demon) was supposed to be responsible for every facet of perception - the entire world beyond one's mind could be a creation of the demon and we would have no idea, which suggests that the demon would also be responsible for memories of the false perceptions.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:15:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're right. I just looked it up. For some reason I was taught that the evil genius only tampered with math, and the dream argument was explained on its own terms. But the end result is that you doubt everything, not just everything except right now. And the only thing Descartes didn't doubt after that was that he existed because he was able to think.
SHIVER_ME_WHISKERS ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:23:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, exactly. You likely have maths in the forefront of your mind because I believe it's something that Descartes specifically mentioned the demon could also be deceiving him about. Descartes had certain beliefs or truths that he called 'indubitable' i.e. impossible to doubt. Among these were mathematical truths. To him, 2+2 is just 4, and there is no way you could doubt such a thing, but he was making the point that the demon could influence even his internal rational thoughts; maybe 2+2 is actually 5, but the demon made him think otherwise.
hearse83 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:27:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or Putnam and the brain in the vat.
[deleted] ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 18:12:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But it makes no practical difference, since everythingโs exactly the same either way.
IllTearOutYour0ptics ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:20:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's basically the real life equivalent of "it was all a dream." There's no way to prove or disprove it, and it doesn't really mean anything since it wouldn't change life as it is even if we knew it was true for certain.
BreadOfLoafer ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:11:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't this just a different version of the idea of us living in a simulation, since there would have to have been some entity that made these memories and orchestrated our creation? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, just interested
GiantJellyfishAttack ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:11:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty sure it's the same.
It's like playing an MMORPG. The game might be a year old but the in game universe might have thousands of years of history to it. At least from a characters point of view.
Bonesnapcall ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:14:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A priest tried to use this on me to explain how the universe could be created 10,000 years ago, but have 5 billion years of history in the rocks.
Basically, if God created a fully-grown tree, would it have rings?
svenson_26 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:21:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah yes. But what willl really pickle your beets is next Thursdayism. The universe could have been created next Thursday, but the fact that we perceive tine a linearly forward is also an illusion.
Biirddyyy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:57:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if we film a video from last Wednesday and keep it going until now?
InteriorEmotion ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:25:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That video, and our memory of it, popped into existence on Thursday, along with everything else.
Khourieat ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:08:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Essentially the plot to Dark City.
Khayembii ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:18:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sort of the plot of Dark City
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:05:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe could also exist entirely on the shell of a giant turtle. Who cares either way?
rythonthesnake ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:40:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Never could get the hang of Thursdays...
Big_Man_Boss_Man ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:43:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Could also have happened literally a second ago and we would never know the difference
Trnostep ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:45:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Today must be a Thursday. I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
SasafrasJones ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:57:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would that make Thursday the first day of the week then and Monday is getting all that hate for no reason?
TheThingsUnsaid ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:06:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is basically a version of the concept of solipsism.
111122223138 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:28:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I find ideas that boil down to "Here's a really wacky thing that can be true because you can't prove for an absolute fact that it isn't true" to be really annoying.
cowsrock1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:42:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
yeah, that one has its issues. Simulation theory has some much more convincing evidence for it.
AtomicCobra826 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:05:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hey, Vsauce, Michael here
give_me_bewbz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:00:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
AnfrageUndNachgebot ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:52:00 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But....but it is Thursday!
usernamesarehard9099 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:23:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well ya we also cant know that we arent all marionettes being controlled by yellow manatee gods in a puppet show but just tricked by their magic into thinking we're real. But some things are pointless and stupid to seriously consider.
cowsrock1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:14:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is why falsifiable is such a huge thing in science. If you can't disprove something, it's a waste of time to hypothisize on it.
Yakmasterson ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:07:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is why we cant be 100% sure that the New Earth Christians are wrong. What if we really did bleep into existence 6000 years ago? It's something I think about. Don't get me wrong, I'm atheist af
Doc_Chickeneater ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:46:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I often wonder if I'm experiencing or remembering what is happening.
Sheevy_Boi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:46:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One of the main teachings of Pastafarianism (except 5000 years ago)
martixy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:02:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Boltzmann Brain is the high-level concept.
Smitten_the_Kitten ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Always hated Thursdays.
cutelilmoth ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:31:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
...god damn it
Allupual ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:49:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was like โno way I remember things from before that!!โ
Then I realized what I was thinking... thatโs low key terrifying
DontDoxMeBro22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:14:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've been on vacation since last Thursday. Pretty sweet existence thus far.
kouderd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:58:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This bothered me so much when i was a kid in elementary school. I still remember going through all the thought experiments in my head to try figuring out if it's possible or not. For all i know i could just be a 10 minute old AI program with data already set. I could be killed and restarted a week from now and i wouldn't know
gamedemon24 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:57:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Furthermore, I'm befuddled by the concept of eternity into the past. If time is linear, shouldn't it have had to start somewhere for us to reach the point we're at now?
Like, say we're at Point 2 on a number line infinite in both directions. We'd never in all eternity reach Point 2 if there's truly eternity into the past. It had to have started somewhere. To me, this suggests at least one of a few different things: that time is not linear, that an all-powerful deity may exist unrestricted by these limits, or that time began, and that absolutely nothing existed before that.
choobe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:31:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the prevailing theory these days is that time began with the Big Bang.
Xclbr1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:29:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would think about this all the time growing up! "What if the universe and I were just now created at this second, and I was given memories? Nah, that's not possible, I distinctly remember experiencing the moments leading to this moment! Oh wait, that's just my memory of those events!"
defendsRobots ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:50:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Boltzmann brain. If that interests you at all then the Boltzmann Brain theory is going to straight fuck you up.
Lazyness_net ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:22:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I often think about how much of history is either completely fabricated or incorrect. Information changes over the course of many years and is nearly always imperfect.
nlfo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:25:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dark City
helm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:44:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It fails the stupid test - everything is the same, except it has stopped making any sense.
Screen_Watcher ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:00:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You just came into existence right now. Every memory you've ever had, including reading the start of this sentence, has just been uploaded in your 2 second old brain. Don't worry because you only exist for a minute before you die.
walkingcarpet23 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:03:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm a day late in responding to this - but this was always something that really bothered me about the Harry Potter world.
In that world it was actually possible for this to happen. Hell, for all I know that world actually exists and I was an active member of it up until last Thursday.
The shit they can do to each other with magic is really fucked up
PackageOfOats ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:50:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel like my life is this. I donโt recognize or โrememberโ being a kid or any younger than a couple years ago. When people recall or reminisce about memories with me I accept that was me, but usually donโt personally recall it. Weird, but sometimes it does feel like universe was created a week ago.
Athandreyal ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:28:56 on April 14, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like to go with last sundayism. So many people go to church and that provides an alibi for the implantation/calibration/initiation whatever, and explains mondays being the most shit day of work, it is your first after all.
bruisedunderpenis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:50:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I never understood why people seem so fascinated by run of the mill unfalsifiable claims as if they are somehow deep. I get that this is a meta thought experiment to expose that inclination, but still. If your takeaway from last thursdayism is "whoooah dude" and not "well duh. You can't prove there's not a planet made entirely of cookie dough with chocolate chip aliens running around it somewhere in the universe. it doesn't mean anything though" there's something wrong.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:06:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The whole point is exactly what you're saying. Basically that claims based on "you can't prove I'm wrong" are useless.
bruisedunderpenis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:22:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right. I have no problem with last thursdayism. I have a problem with the apparent frequency with which I see exactly the faulty reasoning that is being called out by last thursdayism.I never understood the fascination woth it. There's no challenge, and therefore no fun, in defending it.
Laimbrane ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:06:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't Creationism basically just a different version of this?
WhyLater ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:13:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. And they are both just spins on the tired old problem of Solipsism.
JashDreamer ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:49:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This one really gets me.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:53:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This...I just...fuck
The_Godlike_Zeus ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 19:46:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But we can scientifically show that the world was not created last thursday, and science is not a memory, so I don't see how this idea holds?
InteriorEmotion ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:24:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Things like carbon dating won't disprove last thursdayism because god (or whoever) could have created things with a proportion of c12 and c14 that would appear to be old, but in fact were created on Thursday.
The_Godlike_Zeus ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:54:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And that was the moment where the idea became uninteresting.
Lee__Roberts ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:48:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's hypothetical. The "science" we know, when used, produces a result that makes us think the world was created before last Thursday. It's one of those things where you can say yeah well but "what if", so everything gets countered.
Wiki says it's used to counter "young earthers", whatever it's called. Basically religous people that think the Earth was created 6000 years ago and dinosaur fossils and the like are fake. If the Earth could have been created 6000 years ago it could've been created last Thursday.
WhyLater ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:17:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The answer basically boils down to "it might be magic." It's really not that interesting of a philosophy; it's just a spin on Solipsism.
whoever81 ยท 468 points ยท Posted at 17:37:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Memento Mori
Latin, literally โremember (that you have) to dieโ.
aka Remember that you are dying
aka Remember that you are living
ryhall10 ยท 208 points ยท Posted at 21:46:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Meant for the cakesniffers at Prufrock Preparatory
Stormkveld ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 08:10:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only cake sniffers care about poetic form
Randomd0g ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 11:43:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The world is quiet here.
shishuni ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 00:43:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Find a fellow Series of Unfortunate Events watcher I see...
MrBojangoUnchained ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 01:43:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or a reader.
shishuni ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:37:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Good point.
HansjeHolland ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 09:11:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
At 28 years old, I am slightly embarrassed to say I immediately recognized this.
TobiasMasonPark ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 12:39:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Don't be. It's a great series.
Bonhomhongon ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:49:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yooo
SonOfTheShire ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 19:17:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If the nineth lion ate the sun?
piolinest123 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:15:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this a Zero Escape reference?
maijkelhartman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:19:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you. Now I have to play again.
Step one: get tissues for the Luna ending.
noplusnoequalsno ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 06:02:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like Tolstoy's quote on this:
โ Leo Tolstoy, The Path of Life, trans. Maureen Cote
what-a-qweirdo ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 21:34:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Remember to die" sounds like a friendly reminder written on a sticky note.
is_is_not_karmanaut ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:41:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This needs to be a huge flashy projection onto a skyscraper in a cyberpunk city a la Blade Runner.
[REMEMBER
TO DIE] >โณ๏ธ๐ฝ
Cyzzers ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 04:44:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Valar Morghulis
Icecl ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:00:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I will burn my brrrrrreeeaaad!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:33:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but in that game you kill death. Twice.
pbj986 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:16:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah snap you just reminded me about a really good movie by the same name. Thanks!
bluepiggy121 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:45:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Memento? Or is there a different movie called โMemento Moriโ?
pbj986 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:08:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah itโs a foreign film. Momento Mori. Definitely worth a watch.
Not_A_Human_BUT ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:48:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's it about
Nick_BOI ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 03:13:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did you play Persona 3 as well? :0
majesticshit ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:12:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Remember that you are alive. Do not forget that you will one day die. One is at the forefront of your consciousness, the other in your subconscious.
JeyJeyFrocks_3325 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:43:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's funny you say that, I was just watching the episode of Penny Dreadful where they explain Memento Mori, about how a slave was forced to stand behind a warrior returning from battle. The slave was seen holding a skull and would whisper in the warriors ears "Memento Mori". And then it is quoted "All of these Memento Mori, for one sobering passage: Remember that you will die"
give_me_bewbz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:32:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Illuminatus.
KrtekJim ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:09:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So that's the Latin for YOLO.
Maulshi ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:08:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nahh that would be carpe diem. If I recall correctly Memento Mori in the Dark Ages was meant to say how you your mortal life is fleeting and how your real focus should be on the afterlife - which means you're supposed to live your mortal life ethically, following the Bible. It was a common motive used in art, with skulls representing the Memento Mori motive.
piewies ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:34:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Don't this one is applicable for very long though
berkdrums ยท 1257 points ยท Posted at 17:13:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Our experience of time is relative to our perspective of it. If youโre ten years old then one year is equivalent to a tenth of your existence and is incredibly long. By the time youโre 100 itโs one percent of your existence and seems to pass in the blink of an eye. By that logic, the first moment of existence couldโve felt like eternity.
RedditIsAnAddiction ยท 699 points ยท Posted at 20:09:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure that theory of experiencing time was disproved.
The reason you remember time feeling slower when you were younger is because you had less experiences and you had less consistent routine.
tl;dr More new experiences that are not routine = More memories worth remembering that makes time feel slower and longer.
Grafblaffer ยท 357 points ยท Posted at 21:00:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That tldr is almost longer than the post itself lol
Nose_to_the_Wind ยท 226 points ยท Posted at 22:30:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're just experiencing that because you read less to begin with...
uvberot ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:21:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
5meta7fast
DLove19 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:12:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Youโre not deserving enough love for this comment haha take my upvote
emelrad12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:52:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is more like I.e not tldr.
leos101 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:46:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
stiฤบl good and short though
No_Scoped_JFK ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:33:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dude needs to put a tldr for his tldr
music_user ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:23:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Except for the he tldr is actually about half as long as the post itself.... edit: it's actually just a bit less than half as long. tldr is 18 words, main body of the post is 33 words.
farm_ecology ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 21:20:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty much this.
If you look at times in your life you will notice various periods happen at different rates.
There was a half year when I was 18 that felt insanely long, and a year when I was 12 that went like a flash.
Some months are gone in a flash, others burn slowly.
RedditIsAnAddiction ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:49:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can totally relate to that.
Sometimes boring and routine months go by and feel like days yet a week long vacation feels so long.
berkdrums ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:08:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm drawing from a short film called The Eagleman Stag so I wouldnโt be surprised if it werenโt solid. And I can almost tell what youโre saying, but it reads more like the same coin? Maybe a little more explanation?
bjfj ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:06:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well this explains why I think the last year felt more like 3.
Watcher13 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:59:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
While Iโm sure that this is generally true, it's also kind of a subjective measure and the problem with "disproving" the first theory is that it's hard to prove anything about someone else's subjective experiences. There's a lot of things that don't jive with this notion, for example, there is a "bump" in memory production that occurs from your late teens to early twenties that everyone seems to go through, regardless of the amount of routine or novelty in their lives at the time.
Edit: a word
slavicswimmer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:54:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you for your comment! This makes me happy for some reason. I guess itโs because when youโre old, you still have full days and it doesnโt accelerate away from you.
angrymonkey ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:52:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also, younger brains operate several times faster than older ones.
uncleben85 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:11:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Certainly not disproved by your counter theory.
I had a lot of new, non-routine things happen this past year, and a whole lot of memories, but it still feels fast.
Realistically, they are both factors of our perception.
TheloniousPhunk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:46:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then why do older people who lead exciting lives still claim for everything to be going by in the blink of an eye?
Kulladar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:48:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've always wondered in that same regard if life feels longer to people who vividly remember their dreams.
For me when I wake up it's like someone wipes my memory clean and I can't remember anything of my dreams other than maybe that it happened.
My wife however has dreams she remembers in vivid detail and could describe every part of it to you a week later.
Let's say we both dream 6 hours a night for a week, with everything equal that week would feel longer for her in retrospect than it would for me though we both had equal experiences in that period.
Ficulinean ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:36:53 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember my dreams for a bit. Some, I remember more permanently. Some, I forget at the end of a day or a week. Even though I forget the majority shortly after a day is over and a new one starts, I still do place a value on the time I've remembered those dreams for. They are a type of new experience for me. The thing that will hold a non-recurrent dream in memory the most is to talk about it. Not moving around right on waking up helps in the short term, but will not make you less likely to forget at the end of the day.
bigbloodymess69 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:42:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, just to elaborate on that, think about how slow time feels when you're on holiday or something. As each day will contain something outside your regular routine, a week on holiday feels like ages. Whereas a week of work/school can feel like a day when you look back; at least for me anyway.
Smitten_the_Kitten ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:21:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's like when you're in a car and everything close to it is moving fast, but everything on the horizon is moving slow.
InsertName78XDD ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:07:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Additionally, if you live to be 80 years old, you've lived half of your "relative life", as you've described it, by 20.
wickedblight ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:21:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Meh, I don't buy that. 24 hours is a long ass time if you're paying attention to it no matter how old you are.
imprctcljkr ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:25:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hmmm. I think as we grow old,we acquire stuff to do,therefore,consume our time. As a 5 year old me,I don't remember waking up every day and work my ass off because I got bills to pay and worry about other things.
So,yeah,it's probably that perception of time since we are busy with our routines.
rodmandirect ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:42:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Of course that's when they snip the tip off your willy.
KPC51 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:37:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is that philosophy?
LockmanCapulet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:06:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is like the reverse of the claim that an arrow can never reach its target because it has to repeatedly travel half the remaining distance.
infernon_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:13:23 on September 23, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thought about this for a second, particularly last sentence. The problem with that is, we didn't have a first moment of existence, our brains developed slowly and we gradually gained awareness of reality. Super interesting I think.
The_Running_Free ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:54:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I came upon this realization myself and its neat to aee ot posted herw. I always get thoughtful and curious looks when i explain this concept of time to people.
shakazulut ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:30:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Someone did a study of this once asking subjects to tell the researchers when they thought 5 minutes had passed.
I think by the time you're 65 you're experiencing life 2x faster than when you were first born. It follows some kind of curve. Pretty cool experiment.
swimfast58 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:05:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't that just mean old people are really bad at estimating time? It's not like they wouldn't had decades to get used to the new passage of time and get good at estimating it.
shakazulut ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:30:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but in a predictable way.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/1998/03/24/science/running-late-researchers-blame-aging-brain.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
mini6ulrich66 ยท 311 points ยท Posted at 21:13:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks reddit, gonna go have an existential crisis. Later.
Victolabs ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 06:02:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
YOUR MOTHER ONLY LOVED YOU BECAUSE OF CHEMICALS IN HER BRAIN FORCING HER TOO
cheapcardsandpacks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:41:04 on April 20, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait really
Victolabs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:54:59 on April 20, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_bond
Randomd0g ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 11:55:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why? This whole thread is a dream anyway.
You're in a coma. Please wake up. We miss you.
fredricwinterbottom ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 11:05:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Cant remember where I first heard it, but the thing that really gets me is the butterfly dream. Are we people that sometimes dream of being a butterfly? Or are we butterflies dreaming of being people?
cheapcardsandpacks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:41:55 on April 20, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't get it
xdisk ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 01:57:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why wait?
reddititaly ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:11:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How about last Thursday
realdusty_shelf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:13:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Okay Jaden Smith
blueeyes_austin ยท 48 points ยท Posted at 19:09:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That Star Trek teleporters are actually execution chambers.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:49:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Prestige: The Next Generation
SBorealis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:57:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I spot a fellow CGP Grey fan
hoagiej ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:27:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Tuvix anyone?
JargonR3D ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:26:09 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This applies to all teleporters.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:10:41 on May 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How?
blueeyes_austin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:52:28 on May 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because the physical being is destroyed. Think of it this way; imagine you were being teleported but some kind of way the process went wrong with one person in the chamber and another in the other chamber. Which person would be you? The person in the initial chamber. And that means the person in the other chamber is an imposter .
PrincesMaud ยท 461 points ยท Posted at 14:37:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is there an objective moral right or wrong? There are some scenarios where we have a knee-jerk answer of whether it's moral or not, such as killing, but when we add nuance, the line can be blurred. And if there isn't an objective morality, how can we weigh one side's framework for morality against our own?
dsds548 ยท 108 points ยท Posted at 16:11:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a very interesting one. What you are describing has theory already. The theory states that there is a universal morality/right, where certain things are agreed by everyone else as morally wrong. Like for instance, if you kill someone, everyone will think it is wrong, nobody will disagree with that.
However, it's lacking because this is clearly not that black and white. For instance if someone is suffering and in a lot of pain, would it be immoral to end the suffering? This is where the theory weakens. Also if you someone had a genetic disease that can get passed on in his/her genes. Is it moral to stop the person from procreating? Or is it moral to do nothing and allow the child to suffer from the same genetic condition?
[deleted] ยท 53 points ยท Posted at 18:36:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you kill in a war, youโre a hero.
Herb_Kazzaz ยท 47 points ยท Posted at 21:23:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you get killed in a war youre a hero. As long as your side ends up winning
tdrichards74 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 03:36:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โI donโt want you to die for your country. I want you to make some other poor bastard die for his.โ
Intro speech in the movie Patton. Not sure if he actually said that though.
Damn good movie either way.
PolloMagnifico ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 06:14:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Why is it that if you kill a man during a war, it's called heroics. But if you kill a man in the heat of passion, it's called murder?"
Some disturbed donut salesman, Aurora Illinois, c. 1992
Bilgerat4319 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:31:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Who's going to kill you today mr. Donut man?
Kevl17 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:19:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno but they better not!
Vextin ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 21:52:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is difficult to say, because while there are certain horrible, horrible hereditary illnesses that should absolutely be pulled from the gene pool (I'll pull sickle-cell anemia out of my ass here), another person may respond, "Yes, I agree! Let's also stop all the blacks from procreating and get rid of that pesky dark skin!"
I think humans would have a hard time deciding where the line was.
Roachyboy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:55:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sickle cell is a bad example. The reason it is so common in people of African descent is that even one copy of the gene provides some resistance to malaria. Something like Huntingtons is much worse without any positive implications.
bunker_man ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 06:22:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Universal morality isn't about whether its universally agreed on. Its about whether its universally right.
SuperMohrenkopf ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 09:23:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But what is right or wrong is ultimately decided upon by people with their own moral frameworks and bias.
bunker_man ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:12:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So what? What people think about psychology is too. But the topic is still about what the actual answer is, not what people think it is. A lot of people make the mistake of conflating the concept of humans reasoning about morality with the hypothetical thing being reasoned about. Objective morality doesn't even mean humans are capable of fully knowing it.
InsertName78XDD ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 00:10:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also, even "universal morality" isn't really true. Many mass murderers claim that they are saving people by killing them. Most people obviously disagree with them, but it makes it not universal.
dookie_shoos ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 03:51:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That depends on how you think morals come to be. If it's man made, then you'd be correct. However, how are we so sure that they are man made? We could still be just as ignorant about the true nature of morality just as we were about Earth's position in our solar system 1,000+ years ago.
leaf_26 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:11:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_calculus
Farmer771122 ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 19:21:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
easy. subjectively.
Is there an objective delicious? If not, how can we say that ice cream is yummy and licorice is gross? What if someone else likes licorice and hates ice cream?
Nobody pulls out their hair wrestling with the delicious conundrum, and yet we all feel free to have opinions. Morality is the same thing.
"How can you condemn a murderer, if the murderer thinks he's doing the right thing?" Like this: "We The Jury Find The Defendant Guilty." It's not "The universe finds the defendant guilty."
give_me_bewbz ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 12:33:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sooo many of these problems boil down to "Everything is relative".
Naggins ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 23:36:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This sentence betrays an embarrassing unfamiliarity with the most basic principles of Western law.
"People disagree" isn't a very substantial argument for subjective morality. People disagree on whether the earth is round or flat. Some of them are just plain wrong.
Farmer771122 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:02:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It would only be embarrassing if someone literally posited that. Instead, I was caricaturing the people who think you need objective morality in order to judge anyone's actions, as a rhetorical device.
I wasn't trying to prove that morality was subjective. I was explaining how one can feel free to declare something to be one way or another, despite a lack of objective standards.
They're wrong because that's an objective fact, based in measurable observable reality. Unlike claims about the existence of morality outside the mind of any individual human. If so-called objective morality was observable or measurable, then it would be a different story.
hotliquortank ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:55:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So who chooses who is right? there is no need to be an ass in your reply
Naggins ยท -9 points ยท Posted at 00:01:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Alex Trebek obviously.
This isn't fucking Jeopardy, christ.
Okay
_blue-bird_ ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:51:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's also Beauvoir's existential ethics, where there is no cosmic moral formula by which to definitively judge one's or another's actions, but rather there is ambiguity. Actions matter, situations matter, but there is no strict law by which you can determine whether your actions are absolutely right or wrong. A moral act is roughly one that wills your own freedom and that of others, but there is not always a clear line. In my opinion, this is a more rigorous ethics than deontology or utilitarianism because you are never exactly sure so you always have to strive for better, and you are fully responsible for your actions, no matter whether you intended the consequences.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:15:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Syntropic_Entropy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:26:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's a theory for this, it's called utilitarianism. I personally don't always agree, but it's truly a rabbit-hole in and of itself.
bunker_man ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:38:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What movies? Villains working on that logic is often rare, or has an outright flaw worked in like them thinking an authoritarian shithole is what needs of the many means.
kouderd ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:00:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How's this; is it any less humane that chemical weapons are being used in Syria right now than if all those people were killed with napalm or bombs? In fact, doesn't the chemical weapon sound easier than having your body torn apart?
NicoUK ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:55:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Chemical weapons cause more suffering, so they're worse.
Assuming you suffer a direct hit from both.
kouderd ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:35:21 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
More than being burned alive or having a your guts spewed out in front of you and possibly waiting hours to die?
NicoUK ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:32:20 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Did you miss the last sentence in my comment? There are only two of them.
krondog ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:24:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sam Harris wrote a book, my favorite by him, titled "The Moral Landscape" about this very subject. It proposes that science can indeed offer some universal truths to the morality of right and wrong, despite philosophy stating otherwise for most of history.
bunker_man ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 06:39:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sam harris is a hack and his book is considered garbage even by other new atheists like dan denett, but its not wrong that objective morality can exist without god. Problem is he assumes its true, then goes on from there when what we are trying to show is that it is true.
Klogavis ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:40:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No. Hman concepts always only exist inside the subjective mind and never in the onjective outside world. 'Ethical rules' can never be truly, independently objective but we pretend they are (formed from social contracts and evolutionary logical in-built mechanisms like empathy) because that's easier.
bunker_man ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:37:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure what you think you are trying to say, but humans making a word for something doesn't mean that now that they've conceptualized it it can no longer exist.
Klogavis ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:03:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It never existed in the first place. Just try to define an everyday (non-mathemathical) concept and you'll soon discover your definition is completely arbitrary.
fplisadream ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:01:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By the same measure, does an atom exist?
Klogavis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:55:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There might be something out there vaguely resembling our general concept of an atom which we can nicely predict and put into models that work.
bunker_man ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:49:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The fact that all definitions are constructed is an interesting line of thought, but you are mistaken by assuming that that somehow has anything to do with morality not having right answers. You can think of a tree as one object or many, but physically its rules are the same. The fact that "your" world is a phenomenological experience rather than a true thing doesn't actually make the underlying world not exist.
Klogavis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:38:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, there is an underlying world, but the words we use to describe it with are subjective concepts that are impossible to make objective. Just try to define an objectively good or bad moral action which isn't based on arbitrary rules. Morality is famously different for everyone for a reason.
bunker_man ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:48:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
None of this has anything to do with morality. Objective morality has nothing to do with whether everyone agrees about it.
Klogavis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:03:21 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Define a morally good action. Do you want to go the deontologist way and arbitrarily choose virtues people should strive towards or the (hedonistic) utilitaristic way and arbitrarily assign a limit in time and space where the consequences of that action stop?
NicoUK ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:50:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Describe the colour red to a blind man".
gaslightlinux ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:04:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, there is no objective moral right or wrong. Saying so is a belief and just as much religious thinking as believing in God. Ok, so maybe there is a moral right and wrong, and maybe there is a God, but there is still no way to prove either. They are simply beliefs. You can be amoral, but still a "good" and ethical person.
MadeBrazen ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:36:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Really interesting last sentence. Seems contradictory, but I kinda know what you mean.
Syntropic_Entropy ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:23:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, last sentence could have an interesting meaning if it was given context, but is just contradicting itself now.
bunker_man ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:36:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What a surprise that people arguing against objective morality contradict themselves.
Syntropic_Entropy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:43:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, to be fair, I think Objectivism is rather unconvincing personally. When it comes to morality, I'm much more of an Error-Theorist myself.
bunker_man ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:36:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not only is that not true, but its backwards. Thinking that there can't be an objective moral wrong is only a common thing among atheists because they still use christian meta ethics without realizing it and so their idea of objective morality is still tied up in the idea of god.
And then you get bizarre nonsense like this.
gaslightlinux ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:50:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your response was just a long way of saying "you're wrong," without explaining why or making an argument about it.
bunker_man ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:10:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A few sentences isn't really long. And coincidentally I literally had an explanation in there. You made a mistake of thinking objective morality is tied to religious philosophy. Not only is that not true, but the reason you think it is because you are still using religious philosophy. Namely, you are thinking of meta ethics in terms of divine command theory, and thinking that ethics are like commands, and so the idea of universal ethics isn't coherent outside of a religious paradigm where a god can enforce them everywhere. But that's not what ethics are. Its more like a mathematics of value relations.
In other words, you think objective morality is religious because you are approaching the question from a religious angle... in which the only way of understanding it is the one designed by religious people to argue that the only way it can be objective is with god. Because its approached like commands that can only be objective if something has the power to enforce them everywhere. But that's wrong, and you should really learn about the topic in more depth.
gaslightlinux ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:34:11 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was not saying morals were religious in that they were defined by god. I was saying the morals were religious in the sense that they are a belief system, just like a religion. To say that some moral stance is objectively good or bad is just a belief system, it can't be proven true.
bunker_man ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:19:42 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then you misunderstand the topic, because "objective morality" =/= "I know the exact truth about what morals are correct."
fplisadream ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:00:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
Is a good starting point for the idea that ethics aren't just "a belief".
A majority of professional philosophers believe in moral realism rather than moral relativism.
gaslightlinux ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:02:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So you're not familiar enough with it to explain it.
fplisadream ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:17:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, no, I studied it at university so i'm fairly familiar.
More like: It's an extremely complex subject which would take a very long time to fully explain, and I can't really be bothered to boil it down.
Ultimately, there are significant problems with any anti-realist position on the existence of moral facts, whereas there are good reasons to believe they are real (for example: we all have an intuition that certain things are wrong in themselves, and don't relate to our own simple perspective). Additionally, any sufficient framework that removes moral facts from the realm of things that exist, and that we can know, would also remove the existence of, and our ability to know, all physical things as well. It's therefore quite a difficult moral theory to hold.
That's why a majority of professional philosophers do not hold anti-realist or "relativist" views of morality. Often people talk as if it's trivially obvious that moral relativism is true so I think it's important to note that this simply isn't the case for people whose job it is to think about it.
Couldntpicagoodone13 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:12:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dont think so personally. Pretty much any example anyone could bring up could be explained away as not only not being morally wrong, but probably an example of being morally right. It is interesting to think about because you could also look at how people initially react to something before knowing the details (such as murder likely being looked at as wrong) and judge the objectivity off of that because that's probably the truest indication of how a person feels about something.
bunker_man ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:40:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Contextualism =/= non objectivism.
OldMan41258 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:55:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You should check out an experiment test inline called kill the fat man.
NicoUK ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:54:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is this like the trolley problem? Because the answer is obviously to kill the one person. You're choosing to kill 1, or 5 (or 6 if you're eager), just framing it to sound ambiguous.
I never understood the big deal with that one.
OldMan41258 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:57:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are multiple questions and stages for the experiment which challenge different ideologies. I'll find the site I used originally.
Edit: Found it:
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/
fplisadream ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:03:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The problem with that answer is thus:
If you are comfortable pulling the lever to save the five and kill the one, there are other situations that you ought to be comfortable with. For example, killing a random man in order to give essential organs to five people who you know will make a perfect recovery if they receive them. What is the morally relevant difference between these two cases?
NicoUK ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:32:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Circumstance.
The trolley problem has a limitation of time, and resources (the victims).
With the organ recipients you have more time, and you can choose a suitable 'donor'.
There's also the fact that without the chooser, the donor wouldn't be in danger, which means instigating that danger makes that choice morally worse.
CarmelaMachiato ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:58:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I looked this up, and it made me realize I should not be weighing in on moral issues. I thought for sure the popular choice would be to kill the fat man because, you know...train sacrifice is one of the overlooked dangers of obesity.
TellMeHowImWrong ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:05:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The morally right thing is what results in the least suffering and the most happiness. There are so many variables that it's near impossible to figure out definitively how to achieve that but that doesn't mean there isn't a objective answer. It just means we don't know what it is.
thewickedgoat ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:01:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Morality is based on uniform norms we have in society.
From a living perspective, killing is natural - the strongest survive, and killing others basically free up space for your survival.
Morals are human, nothing is "objectively" right or wrong, because in the grand scheme of things there is no judges. Only humans judge.
David_K_Manner ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:22:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've heard something similar before. I think there can not be objective morality. Take a universe with no life, only things made of atoms and molecules but no conscience. There is no action which you could describe as morally right or wrong.
Any morality might then be described with respect to a conscience of some kind. But, then it would not be objective at all and instead subjective to the conscience at hand. Like we describe morality with respect to our contemporary beliefs, for example, slavery.
The morality of an action can also depend on intent and context as well. Killing is morally wrong. But what if it is in a war, is it right? What if the soldier sadistically takes pleasure from it, is it wrong again? Also consider an alien from another planet may have a different considerations for an action's morality.
bunker_man ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 06:37:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's also no like, beavers, but those can exist too.
Robot-8 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:51:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It would seem morality is the byproduct of a self-perserving system. In humans the likeliness of one's survival relies on the preservation of other humans, aside from the individual, for protection and reproduction. Morality seems to be a guide created to best benefit the system based on our most contemporary understanding of ourselves and the universe, that's been built upon for a long time.
More interestingly to me would be the introduction of self-preservation in organisms and if that's something that arose from more simple characteristics of our universe, like how nonliving objects can resist change.
Sp3ctr37 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:38:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would morality as we know it simply be a human construct?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:23:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I love questions like this. I don't think there is an objective morality. It's something we develop and a bit like a muscle. Everyone is different but we are in general agreement on how to work that muscle when it comes to issues like violence and cruelty.
Some people don't develop their morality, or develop a different morality based on personal experience. I think we base our morality on how we are treated, and the values and attitudes of those close to us in the context of the world around us.
No ones view of morality is quite the same as anyone else's. And like a muscle if you don't exercise it it gets weaker. By exercising morality I just mean doing what you think is right. If you go against your own values they begin to falter.
Stay true to yourself and be the change you want to see. I hate the idea that our capacity for good comes from anything other than ourselves.
InvocatioNDotA ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:02:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By objective moral right or wrong you mean Absolute Morality? I think this answer, for each person will depend, not entirely, but largely due to believing in God(s) or not. The whole question of "where did our morality come from?" debate.
Rheywas ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:40:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually Stefan Molyneaux explains this pretty well in this video.
Vulgarian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:02:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know, his argument seems pretty circular.
Rheywas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:17:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What exactly about it is circular? I am genuinely interested, as what he hypothesised made sense to me.
Vulgarian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:00:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This guy does a pretty good logical analysis of it here.
aft2001 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:44:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I find this one real interesting. I haven't seen this episode of Doctor Who but I remember seeing a captioned image of some alien being saying "Your right is my wrong, and your wrong is my right."
Sure, we all agree killing is bad, but why? Would an alien species whose survival didn't depend on cooperation find killing to be immoral?
Related to this is desires and rights. Would a robot who is programmed solely to serve humans mind being a slave? It's its sole purpose, what it was engineered to do, and programmed to want to do. It doesn't have emotions unless we give it them. It doesn't have intelligence unless we give it it. So, why would it have an innate sense to preserve itself if it wasn't made to do so?
teddy2021 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:36:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Morality is quite a comical branch of philosophy. Most philosophy can be argued without a lot of hand wavy explanations, but it is required by morality because of the contingent nature of "happiness" and the contradictory wants of the people.
Aikeko ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:18:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I really like the Buddhist take on this, where the goal is to "cause no suffering" or at least minimize it as much as possible. In that regard, objective moral wrong will always be whatever causes the most suffering in the end. Here comes the argument that we can't predict the future...
CozySlum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:17:21 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think rape would constitute as objectively, morally wrong.
hoi_ming ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:00:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought about this a bit, and basically my thought is there is no objective right or wrong, no objective good or bad. Things that happen are just events in and of itself.
Good or bad are arbitrary evaluation we place on that event. And those evaluations are relavtive to an arbitrary standard we devised.
And those standards tend to be based on what it popularly accepted at the time and these change over time (acceptance of slavery as an example, it different by time period and even by region).
There is no objective measure of morality.
Killing someone is just an event/action. How we label it will really depend on many factors, and ultimately, the relative value system of the person or people making that determination.
On a side note, this is how I try to stay even keeled. Everything is good or bad based on how it varies from the person's expectations. If you go to China and expect they're to be aggressive drivers, you're less likely to be upset at being cutoff. Or going into a movie with no expectations and being pleasantly surprised.
For me, I try to manage my expectations by lowering them or having no expectations, and try to experience events as is. But I'm only human so it's not like I never get upset, but I try to keep it to a minimum.
MadeBrazen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:01:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Great question! Thinking on this, I feel the concepts of right and wrong cannot exist without a conscience to reflect on the morality in question, and then pass judgement. Meaning they exist only in the minds of beings capable of that kind of self reflection and are therefore subjective. (I say beings, not just humans, as interestingly, we can assume from their studied behaviour that a monkey may commit an act knowing that it is 'wrong', i.e. not in line with the monkey's group hierarchy. This could transfer to other species as well, dogs for example.)
Morality over time and across cultures I would imagine can be measured by considering the benefit to the group that a certain moral weighting offers. For example, a punishment for stealing even a loaf of bread in parts of Asia used to (probably still does?) result in having the thieving hand chopped off. This suggests stealing is a very wrong thing to do. In modern Western culture that same stolen loaf would result in only a slapped wrist, not a chopped one, suggesting the deed is not axtually so bad in this group. Who is right? In reality, a severed limb in Western culture costs a hell of a lot more to deal with in medical fees and inability to contribute to society than a loaf of bread. And there the face of true morality, if there could ever be such a thing, becomes clouded - because it depends on pervading external influences.
bunker_man ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:21:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Moral greyness =/= there being no objective answer. In fact, it requires it.
Tminusfour20 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:48:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Moral right and wrong are just what an entire group of people in a community agree on. The problem arises when that community or group of people expand to several billion. It always going to be hard to get that many people to come to a real consensus about anything so morality is really just what the majority of people in a specific group agree on what is right and wrong at that point in time.
shakazulut ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:33:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
All about perspective, right? In the context of humanity, killing is wrong. But I'm the context of a particular person, maybe not.
CrashDunning ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:05:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's no objective right or wrong. Every society just decides what is good and bad based on what is productive and "best" for everyone.
Murder isn't objectively bad. There can be some good reasons to do it, but we've decided as a society that it's a bad thing to do because of other reasons. Deciding which reasons are more important is completely arbitrary.
Hidalgo321 ยท 767 points ยท Posted at 13:39:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
More cosmological but the fact that the Universe is literally creating space at an extremely fast rate in all places at all times.
Also the fact that if the Big Bang theory is correct, the center of the Universe is literally everywhere.
Edit: Creating space may be a bit misleading. Space is increasing between all objects in a way that would make it seem it is.
Byizo ยท 424 points ยท Posted at 15:49:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So what you're saying is I might actually be the center of the universe?
SolDarkHunter ยท 386 points ยท Posted at 17:05:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are, but so is everyone else.
Iamnotarobotchicken ยท 215 points ยท Posted at 18:15:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But, I am at the center of the universe, right?
RynoSauce ยท 172 points ยท Posted at 18:38:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are, but so is everyone else.
SelectYT ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 19:55:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So are fortnite youtubers or hentai haven at the center of the universe????
ELLE3773 ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 20:34:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They are, but so are PewDiePie and DeviantArt
Robotic5quirrel ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 22:19:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What you're telling me is that every narcissist out there is actually the center of the universe?
dabauss514 ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 22:49:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but so is your mom.
oolivero45 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 08:08:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, she's so big that she is the universe.
Arcanehavok ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:15:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
NO U
elbapo ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:36:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
no i am
elbapo ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:36:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
no u
evilution382 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:21:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No me
thebestemailever ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:27:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Each Massachusetts driver seems to have this same conclusion independently
theonepoofwonder ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:13:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But steel is heavier than feathers
demilitarized_zone ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:36:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not only are you the centre of the universe, but youโre at the centre of your own personal quantum universe in which you are immortal.
IthotItoldja ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:04:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs cool. Also the quantum immortality hypothesis is testable.
Iamnotarobotchicken ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:30:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like this thread
corgocracy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:19:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Imagine putting two sharpie dots on a brand new deflated balloon. Then think about what happens to the space between those dots as you would inflate the balloon. Where is the center of the surface of the balloon? Are the dots getting further apart from each other in every direction? If the balloon instead had a grid drawn on it, wouldn't every square be expanding?
Iamnotarobotchicken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:05:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think you missed my sarcastic glee.
greadhdyay ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:07:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are everyone else
BlooFlea ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:31:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nuh uh
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:54:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds about right...
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:56:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know you are but what am I? And everyone else?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:20:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No I am, but youโre all out there somewhere.
BaumDude ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 17:05:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You actually are the center of your observable universe. Because the observable universe is just the part of the universe which light has reached us which makes it a sphere with you at the center.
ijustmadethis1111 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:09:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
you are the center of your perceivable universe
lavindar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the universe itself its its own center
Smitten_the_Kitten ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:18:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're the center of my universe.
aliazim278 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:30:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
yep no wonder why no mans sky was a scam
TheAverageSJW ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:22:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, 1 S Boston Ave, Tulsa, OK 74103 is.
idejmcd ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:30:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Another cosmological idea I learned recently that blew my mind: Cosmological natural selection. The idea provides a theory on how the process that created this universe may function in a way similar to evolution, but instead of a life form passing naturally selected genetics to the next generation you have a success universe would pass on successful physical models to new universes created by black holes. The idea pre-supposes that black holes are seeds for entirely new universes, and that any 2 universes may have a model of physics that vary from each other.
For example, this universe could be considered successful because of the vast number of black holes which have been created within it. Each black hole represents an entirely new universe but with a physical model that mirrors our own universe. Our universe has successfully passed on its code for success to new universes. Compare this to an (imaginary) universe where physics operate differently from our own (Maybe light travels at a different speed, or gravity has the opposite effect). Maybe this universe only creates 1 or 2 black holes because the conditions are not as conducive to this outcome. These 2 child universes would also be less likely to produce a preponderance of black holes due to their physical model being similar to the parent universe
I'm sure I've butchered this, and it's obviously only a theory, and less than that because it makes a lot of guesses about black holes and alternate universes. But the idea that there's a parent universe out there similar to our own, or a huge number of child universes similar to our own, is pretty mindblowing to think about. Is there a universe out there so exactingly similar that I'm commenting about cosmology on reddit?
They_Call_Me_Dave ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:59:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've had similar shower thoughts throughout my life. What would our universe look like if one of the physical laws was altered slightly? If the speed of light were marginally slower or the gravitational force a little weaker, how grand of an effect would that have on the formation of everything in that universe? Are there an infinite number of universes out there with altered forms of the physical laws we know, and even still ones with physical properties we can't conceive?
Idk man I'm just Dave, but it's cool to think about.
idejmcd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:42:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
fuck yea my dude
Farmer771122 ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 19:15:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
no more than I literally create rubber by inflating a balloon.
*edit: jesus christ, armchair astrophysicists... I didn't say space was literally like the rubber on a balloon. I just gave an illustration of how something can get bigger without any additional material being created. Please, nobody else needs to explain to me how space is not made of stretchy rubber.
EighthScofflaw ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 21:05:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does space have some invariant measure that doesn't change during expansion?
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:26:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The 'strength' of dark energy remains constant and does not vary with the expansion of the universe.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:29:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:49:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dark energy has nothing to do with dark matter.
Dark energy is the name of the something causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Dark matter is, from what we can understand so far, some form of matter that interacts with the rest of the universe via gravity only.
Farmer771122 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:19:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't believe so. But in that sense, space doesn't exist at all, and cannot be created nor destroyed.
In the sense that astronomers use it,
If you think the phrase "created" can apply to this operation, then this is just a language problem. /shrug
Tommero ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:09:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not a fitting analogy at all.
IllTearOutYour0ptics ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:37:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're creating surface area, but it still doesn't really make sense because space doesn't become "thinner," as it expands.
Farmer771122 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:15:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I didn't say space became thinner, or the universe was a rubber balloon, or any other nonsense. I just said a balloon is an example of how a thing can get bigger without more material being "created".
IllTearOutYour0ptics ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 04:19:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yikes, guess we struck a nerve with that one, you even made an edit in your original comment. Sorry if your feelers were hurt.
swimfast58 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:07:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, more like the way that you create more balloon by inflating a balloon.
being_inappropriate ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:45:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does that mean we pop ?
TheloniousPhunk ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:55:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not correct. You are expanding already-existing material, thinning it out and making it 'weaker' on all points.
Space is not like that. We aren't 'thinning it out'.
The "big rip" has been ruled out many times.
Farmer771122 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 04:12:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I never said the universe was being stretched thinner and thinner. All I said was that it was not correct that space is being literally created, and then gave an analogy that illustrates how something can get bigger without anything being created.
TheloniousPhunk ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 04:30:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's a fair enough point, but you should change the analogy then; because it implies space is like a balloon, stretching out. It's not.
CodeMonkey24 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:36:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is actually more to do with the theory that the universe is infinite in all directions. By definition, if there is an equal (infinite) amount of space in all directions from a given point, then that point is the centre of the universe.
demonicpigg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's awkward due to the fact that infinity does not equal infinity in mathematics. The most simple way to explain that would be something along the lines of the amount of numbers between 0 and 1 and the amount of numbers between 0 and 2.
ayyeeeeeelmao ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:19:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
...which are the exact same infinity. A better example would be numbers between 0 and 1, which is greater than the set of all integers.
demonicpigg ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unless I'm missing something, I would argue that the set of numbers between 0 and 1 is a subset of the set of numbers between 0 and 2. It's been a long time since I've done a proof, but I'm pretty sure I could prove that a set must be larger than one of it's subsets. My two infinite sets would be {xโฃxโR,x<1,x>0} and {{xโฃxโR,x<1,x>0}, {xโฃxโR,x<2,x>=1}}.
ayyeeeeeelmao ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:17:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A subset can be the same size as its superset. In fact, every set is a subset (and superset) of itself. Semantics aside, there is a very simple bijection from the set 0-1 to the set 0-2 by using f(x) = 2x.
YouHaveToGoHome ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:16:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, cardinality is done using Schroder-Bernstein: if I can find an injection from set A to B and another injection from B to A, then they have the same cardinality.
PvtTimHall ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:03:59 on April 15, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You cannot prove that. Consider the function f(x)=x-1 defined from N\{1} -> N
That is, f(2) = 1
f(3) = 2
f(4) = 3
and so on
It's trivial to prove that this function is bijective, which means the two sets have the same cardinality, despite the fact that N\{1} is a proper subset of N.
Or similarly, and the more quintessential example, the function f(x) = 2x from N to the set of even numbers.
Towerss ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:22:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It isn't creating space, it is already infinite. It is creating distance between the particles in space
EighthScofflaw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:07:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, as time goes by there is more space for particles to be in. It doesn't seem that crazy to me to describe that as "creating space".
Singular_Thought ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:27:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To expand on this, at about 16 billion light years away the universe is expanding away faster than the speed of light. We will never receive any light or other information about anything beyond this distance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cosmological_horizons
droogans ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:23:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My personal theory is that these horizons eventually become the outer edge of a white hole, creating a new big bang that is only perceived inside of the now trapped space.
We are, in a sense, falling into a smaller and smaller universe, each time resetting the meaningless concept of the plank distance to compensate for it. Not sure if that works out in the grand scheme of astrophysics, but its got an elegant recursion to it, which is pleasant.
512165381 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:19:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its called the metric expansion of space.
Its not quite that. We see space expanding in all directions at the same rate. Therefore its not possible to prove that any particular point is the centre of the universe, since all points see the "edge" of the universe the same way.
By the way, the universe is expanding at double the speed of light. This does not invalidate special relativity.
bepseh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:51:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Uranus is the center of the universe
Flutemouth ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:59:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Finite can't be right no matter how perfectly it's convinced us, 'cause eternity is simultaneous.
Slooper1140 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:02:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if the universe is actually imploding rather than expanding? So everything in it is just getting smaller and smaller and moving towards the center, but if you could observe it from the outside, it would be the same size.
rpoola ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:42:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An interesting way to visualize this is to imagine a bubble that's getting air blown into it, except the surface of the bubble isn't 2D, but 3D.
SuperMohrenkopf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:28:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd argue the "creating space" part. We do not know what or if there is anything past the universe. What if an universe is just like a galaxy within an universe? If there's several universes which are in something bigger or perhaps our universe exists within a dimension and we'd theoretically be able to enter another dimension and universe by exiting our own universe (if we were physically able to travel that fast).
thewickedgoat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:02:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's actually not creating space - space is expanding into itself. Sounds fucking stupid, I know.
DrinksAreOnTheHouse ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:48:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is an โOPโs Momโ joke somewhere here
knorkatos ยท 592 points ยท Posted at 13:38:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That we can talk to each other and that we can understand each other, even if we are not directly replying to the other person. A: Do you come to the party tonight? B: I have an exam tomorrow. We often don't realize how our language works. But if you begin to think about it it can become quite difficult to explain why some things mean this and others mean that. And how its possible to talk about Unicorns and fictional things.
Edit: fixed a question mark
carbonetc ยท 209 points ยท Posted at 16:52:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Read up on Wittgenstein's beetle in a box to really bake your noodle.
FijiTearz ยท 149 points ยท Posted at 17:21:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like this. I'm gonna steal it
525600Pepes ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 18:36:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Have a cookie.
ClosetWeeb3 ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 20:16:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And don't worry about the vase.
expensivepens ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:56:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What vase?
obscureferences ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:06:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That vase.
clinkyec ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:20:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What vase?
monsto ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:16:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By the time you're done you'll feel right as rain.
MrTraveljuice ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:03:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This sentence baked my noodle. And not in a good way
monsto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:22:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Great scene, your quote is at :53
The entire move is genre-defining. you should watch it. EVen if you've seen it, watch it again.
2ndarily, woman says "balls to bones".
It was just last year, when I was watching it with my kids, that i realized that the phrase doesn't mean depth.
It describes the length of life. . . from un-ejaculated spermatozoa to the point where even microbes are no longer interested in feeding off your remains.
dwjlien ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:48:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You should really watch the Matrix, still a great film.
boilerkunze ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:09:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for this. As a concept, it makes perfect sense. I have had the conversation about color with people before (Is my green the same as your green?). I think that's a common one.
I like this because I think the concept could be used a good talking point when talking to people that don't understand mental illness. Whether it's something extreme like schizophrenia or dementia or something more mild like anxiety (not to minimize anxiety, I just think that's easier to maybe understand than the more extreme situations), this concept explains how difficult (or impossible) it is for us to explain a sensation to someone who has never experienced it.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:24:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or watch a quick animated video on it!
https://youtu.be/x86hLtOkou8
noplusnoequalsno ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:05:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here's a super short video on the topic for anyone who doesn't want to take on the difficult task on actually reading Wittgenstein.
paraakrama ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:22:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You win. My noodle is officially baked.
Indosay ยท 188 points ยท Posted at 17:23:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Man, just language in general is so cool. It's this evolving blob of thought representation that changes and mutates and morphs and warps and traverses through time and culture and location. We try to place rules on it, which are important in some aspect, but it's not the language itself that's ultimately important. Language is a tool to convey feelings and abstract thoughts. Just so neat.
Immortal_Azrael ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 00:46:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Linguistics really is a fascinating subject. The most amazing thing to me is how the language that a person speaks shapes the way they think. Like the idea that ancient civilizations may not have been able to perceive the color blue because they had no word for it. 1984 also has an interesting theoretical take on it with using newspeak to restrict thought. The idea that you can prevent people from thinking certain thoughts by denying them any words to express those thoughts is both amazing and terrifying.
PeachtreesAndPickles ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 12:25:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That always amazes me too. I was raised bilingual in the USA by immigrant parents and have thought of this a lot. I learned a third language as an adult and my favorite thing is speaking to other English/Portuguese/Spanish speakers because we have the best of 3 worlds as far as vocabulary choices. There are words in each language that don't exist in any of the others and it is incredible. Does it mean English speakers have never experienced saudade or the fleeting beauty of apaixonar? Why does sobremesa describe a meal course in Portuguese and an action in Spanish? Its interesting to me that both of the Romance languages I speak have countless more words to describe emotional states and the people who speak these languages are seen as passionate.
knorkatos ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:00:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its complex and has an underlying structure somehow, which is really interesting to explore. I attend some classes about philosophy of language this year and I'm exicted to learn more about it.
AlexYuuki ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 20:59:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There was a thread that I read about this I'd guess around a year or so a go, I wish I could give credit to the person who wrote this but I loved the comment so much I saved it. I'll post it below.
fozzy_bear123 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:25:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I read this philosophy book once that's really influenced me, and this comment brings it to mind. It's called "Finite and Infinite Games" by James Carse. If you find that comment interesting, I think this book will capture you. Quotes from that book follow me everywhere now.
"When you relinquish your words from your lips, you relinquish them to my ear."
"It is simultaneous to the discovery that I am the unrepeatable center of my universe that you are the unrepeatable center of your own."
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:30:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow that quote is profound. Thanks for sharing!
PeachtreesAndPickles ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:34:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you for sharing this. It's so true. I mentioned in another comment that I am trilingual, and of my two friends I feel most understood by- one speaks all 3 languages I do and the other (my boyfriend) speaks 2 of the same ones. Our conversations are peppered quite liberally with words and idioms from our other languages and it's immensely helpful in communicating.
At the same time it reaches a point where language doesn't matter so much as feeling understood or at ease that you are accepted. I have seen people with a language barrier between them who get along more easily and have more in common than those of us who can communicate verbally.
Indosay ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:09:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's really cool. I did a double major in English and Philosophy, but my school didn't offer a philosophy of language class haha. At least not while I was there. I would have loved that, though. One of my favorite classes was sort of a language philosophy class. It was some intro linguistics class. Super interesting, super cool. Exactly like we're talking about, exploring language at its underlying structure in different cultures and different time periods. Just so awesome to see how it changes.
knorkatos ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:20:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thats sad haha, we luckily have some teachers for that subject. I'm exited to explore the subject as well. :)
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:42:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dont forget absolute and tangible logic as well! e.g. "Water makes you wet." or "I can wiegh that rock being 10 lbs/kgs".
David_K_Manner ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:42:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Language as a whole has always fascinated me. I know 3 languages and currently in University. Here everyone knows English but most speak their own mother tongue if they are in their circle of similar speaking friends. Seeing how I can barely understand some words but mostly not understand anything else for languages with a similar origin is quite interesting.
Even for a completely foreign language, there can a lot to understand from non-verbal habits, body language and context clues.
Indosay ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:49:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Totally! I work for a cultural not-for-profit and am surrounded by a language I don't speak every day and have been for 5 years. 1) I know it's really dumb that I haven't just learned the language yet haha but 2) I swear after all this time being surrounded by it daily, I can sometimes sort of understand what's going on just by how something is being said or body language or the one or two words I sort of know. Of course many, many times I have no idea. But there are definitely times where I just kind of know what was just asked or what was just discussed even though I didn't understand a word of what was just said. I'll try to confirm it after the conversation is over and sometimes I'm way off lol. But there have definitely been times where I was right, I picked it up just based on the other aspects of the language other than the words themselves.
Another fun story, I visited Amsterdam with some friends maybe 8 years ago or so. One of my friends spoke a little German. We met an American and my friend mentioned she could pick up a little of the Dutch we heard throughout the city because it was very similar to German in some ways. The American laughed and told us not to say that to any Dutch people we met. That it's a sort of sore spot because some people still hold some negative views towards German for World War II. I don't know if that's true or if he was just lying haha, but we thought it was interesting.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:01:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is language but a sound we christen?
batsofburden ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:55:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's all morphing into emojis now.
yours_untruly ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:59:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I recently noticed something like this while making some translations, and it extends to international communication, regarding how humans communicate and understand each other.
For instance, a word can have a direct and agreed translation, but, given its context in each country's culture, it will have a different meaning or imagery in the speaker/listener's head.
The example that made me think of this is the word "Barbecue". Different countries will have different words for it, but most of them will have a direct translation, but the way people think of a Barbecue in each country is different, so we can talk about the same thing, but the way we picture it can be totally different.
EighthScofflaw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:08:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How do you know you're understanding what the other person is saying?
JargonR3D ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:28:42 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Do you come to the party tonight?
BlazingFox ยท 216 points ยท Posted at 16:56:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is a position called "determinism" where all events are determined by other events, and there is the opposite where events do not have causes. There are people who argue free will does not exist either way.
If something external like our environment determines our thoughts and actions, then why do we feel like we have free will?
On the other hand, our thoughts and actions may not actually be determined by other things, but wouldn't that mean they are random, and free will still doesn't exist?
HurricaneAlpha ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 03:54:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Determinism all comes down to causality. Everything we have experienced, everything macrocosmic to microcosmic, all science, is reliant on the truth of causality. To think that human consciousness somehow exists outside of that same universal rule is hard to accept.
Mokoko42 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:36:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not all science. There are non-deterministic aspects of quantum mechanics. True randomness could actually exist.
HurricaneAlpha ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 04:41:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Quantum mechanics provides unpredictability. That's not a lack of causality, simply a lack of human understanding.
Mokoko42 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:52:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe could inherently be random,you can't claim such a thing with absolute certianty just because things seem to be orderly in the larger scale. It may go against your intuition but the universe doesn't have to make sense to you or me. Especially once you are in the quantum level.
Typhoonjig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:13:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even there the main law is "randomness" and you still can't do a shit about it, still deterministic in a weird way.
Typhoonjig ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:12:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If we can't predict it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't work following laws, just that we're unnable to understand said laws.
ArchRelentlessness ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 02:43:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You could take the stance that past events have caused your brain to believe that it has free will, although it doesn't.
JerememeSeinfeld ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:48:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't agree with that. The way I see it, you choose how you react to the past. You can expose 4 people to the same event, and all 4 will likely have a different outlook coming out of it. Yes, the past even caused me to have a reaction, but I chose the reaction. It's a mixture of free will and causation
Edit: gave my opinion on a philosophical conundrum that nobody can truly understand, got down voted. Never change reddit.
ArchRelentlessness ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:53:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
At this point, it depends on how you define free will. No, you can't change the one possible future that is going to occur. Yes, your wants influence your actions. It's somewhere in the middle.
TouchFunnyGetDitzy ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 04:28:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but you can't choose your wants. Therefore no free will. It's actually really hard (I daresay impossible) to define free will without resorting to mysticism or metaphysics.
Lots of research in favor of the idea that choices that we deem conscious are finalized before we even realize we have made a choice (several seconds before in some cases). Where's the will in that?
bwv549 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:27:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The same person who did most of this research also showed that these types of decisions can be vetoed in a volitional manner.
TheDroidUrLookin4 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:58:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A few friends and I asked ourselves what it took to minimally define a human being. One friend told me that a human is essentially defined by three things: DNA (the building blocks), experiences (what happens to you over time), and choices. I always felt compelled to argue that choices are a product of DNA and experiences rather than a separate defining feature. I mean, if you were born to Hitler's parents, with Hitler's genes and experienced all of Hitler's experiences, how can you argue that you would without doubt choose a different path?
I'm not trying to deny the existence of free will necessarily, but I do think it's much easier to accept that it is an illusion at best. That said, the illusion of free will is enough to hold people accountable for their actions. Fun topic, everyone!
ArchRelentlessness ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:39:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, yeah, that definition is an extreme definition.
Kevl17 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:39:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The point is that what you perceive as your choice is actually a complex series of inputs and outputs no different to a computer. You receive stimulus, your brain processes, and out comes your thought/action/reaction based on the stimulus and the composition of your brain.
cheaganvegan ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:26:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sam Harris book called free will is worth a read.
JerememeSeinfeld ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:30:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'll have to look in to it. It's a super interesting topic to think about and debate for sure. I don't think we as humans will ever truly find the answer 100% but still
Nithin_palwai ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 05:21:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A movie "Ship of theseus" has an excellent quote on freewill.
The fungus enters an ant's body through its respiration. It invades it's brain and changes how it perceives smell, because ants do everything they do from their smell of pheromones, right? So this microscopic little fungal spore, then makes the ant climb up the stem of a plant and bite hard on a leaf, with an abnormal force. The fungus then kills the ant, and continues to grow, leaving the ant's exoskeleton intact. So, a small fungus drives an ant around as a vehicle, uses it as food and shelter and then as the ultimate monument to itself. And when the fungus is ready to reproduce, its fruiting bodies grow from the ant's head and rupture releasing the spores, letting the wind carry them to more unsuspecting food. There, our entire idea of free will down the bin.One single small fungus spore does that to an ant. You have trillions of bacteria in your body. How do you know where you end, and where your environment begins"
BlazingFox ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:36:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's a great quote. I've always felt that the idea of a lack of free will undermines the idea that we are separate from the universe.
Mateussf ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 03:56:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I myself am a compatibilist: the universe is deterministic, our actions are "already written", but yeah, we do have free will to choose to do whatever we want to (but "God/the Universe/wtvr" already knows what we will choose)
AMA_About_Rampart ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:31:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's one of the reasons I left Christianity. If god created billions of people knowing they would end up in hell, tortured for eternity, then why'd he create them? That just seems evil, if it were true.
GodFeedethTheRavens ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:45:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not every Christian believes in Hell in terms of eternal torture.
BlazingFox ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:02:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's a good view. I would never suggest that we know for sure what will happen to us in the future.
Mateussf ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:05:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not us humans, per se, but a all-knowing being or computer might.
megotlice ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:50:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That seems like a paradox to me.
Mateussf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:04:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sure it does for many. But it's just like a movie or book. No matter how many times the story is watched or told, the ending is always the same. But the characters living the story feel and act like they have free will.
megotlice ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:20:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Im confused. Do you believe in free will or not?
Mateussf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:06:40 on May 7, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
you are free to make a choice. but that choice is a consequence of all the positions and velocities of the atoms and particles of the universe.
megotlice ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:17:28 on May 7, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, cause and effect. "This happens so im acting in this way". Thats still an arguement against free will, at least to me. You dont choose what to eat, for example. Its decided for you based on instinct and what the world is telling you to eat.
BoyishDragon ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 06:06:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I never got the argument that randomness (non determinism) = free will, it's still not a choice, the universe is making a random decision for me
sacredgeometry13 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:47:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I had this happen to me. Played Rock Paper Scissors to see who went home early. I won. Guy finished his shift and killed somebody with his car on the way home. Cyclist came out in front of a direct tv van.
BlazingFox ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:56:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn. I'm sorry to hear that.
It's rather cruel how little control we have over what happens to us sometimes.
Umbos ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:02:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. Either things happen because of causality or chance, there's no room for free will.
ben_page2 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:21:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
E
Edit: Your post caused me to make this comment
soullessroentgenium ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:10:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Please define "free will".
BlazingFox ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:26:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
According to Wikipedia's article on it, it is "the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded," which is how I used it. Sorry I couldn't link to the article since I'm on mobile.
soullessroentgenium ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:27:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Great. What is "choosing"?
I don't intend to be picking an arbitrary word from each response and demanding that you define it here. I intend for you to meaningfully specify what exactly you're talking about.
BlazingFox ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:56:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's a good question. I think "choosing" involves using the mind to think and then making an action as a result. Let me know if I'm being vague, though I don't mean to be.
soullessroentgenium ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:56:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What about that precludes the process being deterministic?
BlazingFox ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:42:25 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's the "unimpeded" part of it, actually. In my understanding, determinism says that prior events can interfere with your situation and impede the amount or type of reactions (thoughts and actions) you can possibly have in your life.
soullessroentgenium ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:51:48 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, free will is defined to be something that can only exist in the absence of all other things?
BlazingFox ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:31:27 on April 14, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As far as I can tell, from that definition of it. I'd be interested in seeing arguments supporting free will though, because I've really just focused on ones against it which may make me biased.
thewickedgoat ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:13:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is looking at "free will" as a law that binds the universe.
Technically speaking, "random" is a human term that explains a definite outcome of a wide range of possible outcomes. If you Roll a dice, there is an equal chance of it hitting all of the 6 possible outcomes - but this is due to physics - you're actually never getting that same dice roll 100% randomly, because factors in your throw will increase the likelyness of one of the definite outcomes.
But if you think as if each roll of the dice was predetermined, then it is 100% sure that it isn't random, because the laws of physics would always react in whatever way that roll played out. Your decision to throw the dice is what mattered. You had the option not to. It's not a definite state - but first when you actually do the dice roll, it collapse to a definite state - the action have already been done.
this is all fucking confusing to grasp, but it's soooo wild if you think about it.
TheElite3740 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:54:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You've worded it poorly but I'll forgive you.
Good book by Holbach on it. Everything that you experience is a result of pre-determined past events that are beyond your control and result in us having no free will.
Just as your heart beats without any body controlling it, your mind thinks, there is nobody behind the scene pulling the curtains.
GodFeedethTheRavens ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:47:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My problem with this idea: If everything in the Universe is predetermined but we have no way of observing the future; does determinism matter?
BlazingFox ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:50:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it matters politically. Determinists are often leftists or Marxists, as far as I can tell. If external influences truly determine all our lives, then there's no reason to reward a person who works hard, because something external made them work hard in the first place. Similarly, a lazy person would not deserve less, because he didn't just decide one day to be lazy instead of working hard. It leads to the idea that all people are equally deserving.
That's what a leftist would argue. The way I see it, the political left believes that people are not created equal, their lives being determined, but they deserve to be equal, and the political right believes people are created equal, all having the free will to determine their own lives, but they should be made inequal in wealth according to how hard they work. They're polar opposites, but it's all about what people are like when they are born, and what they deserve in life.
As far as I can tell, the leftist argument relies on the idea that people have no free will, while the rightist argument relies on the idea that they do have a free will.
In my opinion, the question of free will is extremely important for that reason. I'm a bit of an "armchair philosopher," though. If someone were to educate on it, I might think differently.
GodFeedethTheRavens ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:15:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hm. That seems like a gross oversimplification. What philosophers make the claim that left=no free will, right=free will?
Mateussf ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:06:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am a leftist, and I'd say people do have free will, they just don't have the same opportunities.
Prondox ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:53:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
2 things affect how you will act, your genetics which you had nothing to do with and things that happen around you / to you that you have no choice in happening and that happen because of actions of other people. What you do is predetermined by other actions
TitaniumDragon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:32:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Free will is kind of pointless to worry about.
If it exists, then worrying about it is silly, because it exists, and there's no reason to be concerned in the first place.
If it doesn't exist, then you don't have any choice about whether or not you believe it exists anyway, so there's no point in worrying about it because you can't actually change anything anyway.
Free will, as most people understand it, actually does exist, though, if you think of free will as an independent agent making decisions based on information available to it. That certainly exists.
Whether or not the agents truly are capable of making different choices is the unresolvable question.
BlazingFox ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:54:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'll repost what I replied to someone else. Warning though, I used the definition that free will is "the ability to make a decision about potential options unimpeded."
I think it matters politically. Determinists are often leftists or Marxists, as far as I can tell. If external influences truly determine all our lives, then there's no reason to reward a person who works hard, because something external made them work hard in the first place. Similarly, a lazy person would not deserve less, because he didn't just decide one day to be lazy instead of working hard. It leads to the idea that all people are equally deserving.
That's what a leftist would argue. The way I see it, the political left believes that people are not created equal, their lives being determined, but they deserve to be equal, and the political right believes people are created equal, all having the free will to determine their own lives, but they should be made inequal in wealth according to how hard they work. They're polar opposites, but it's all about what people are like when they are born, and what they deserve in life.
As far as I can tell, the leftist argument relies on the idea that people have no free will, while the rightist argument relies on the idea that they do have a free will.
In my opinion, the question of free will is extremely important for that reason. I'm a bit of an "armchair philosopher," though. If someone were to educate on it, I might think differently.
TitaniumDragon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:36:22 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The entire idea is flawed to begin with. There's no actual value in that argument at all.
The correct way to look at it is to look at the outcomes of the systems.
Capitalism works because it is a sophisticated system of reciprocal altruism in which even selfish actors are strongly incentivized to work for the public good - because producing more value gives you more value, everyone is encouraged to produce more value, and the amount of value produced by society as a whole is maximized, because it is in everyone's individual interest to produce as much value as they can.
Free will is irrelevant to this; if actions are deterministic, then capitalism works because the system creates this behavior. If actions are free, then free actors are encouraged to act optimally under capitalistic systems.
dragonthemagicpuff ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:38:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue that if I don't have free will then I wouldn't do/not do different things on a whim because "I want to" and no other reason.
Eticology ยท 666 points ยท Posted at 14:01:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When you look out into the night sky, the blackest black isn't the far back wall of the universe. That's just as far as your eye can see. There's more beyond that.
JohnLemonBot ยท 326 points ยท Posted at 18:07:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually there is a horizon in which, due to general reletivity and other astrophysics, light will never reach us from. It is because the universe is expanding faster than light can traverse it. The wall is there, but it is so far away that what you are saying may as well be true.
[deleted] ยท 61 points ยท Posted at 21:37:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
whats reletivity bro
JohnLemonBot ยท 106 points ยท Posted at 22:49:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Space shit nibba
babyneckpunch ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 11:09:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hey Pewds
Neodrivesageo ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 01:19:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You know your cousin? Y'all are related right? That's reletivity
Mayday72 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:45:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's spelling bro
AltCrow ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 00:58:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We haven't reached that wall yet though. The reason we're currently limited in our view is because some stuff hasn't existed long enough yet for light to reach us.
PeterGibbons316 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:01:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The difference between the universe and our observable universe.
kopkiwi ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:02:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does the expansion of the Universe make a noise?
freakinidiotatwork ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:40:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It was actually isolated a few years ago by a Finnish scientist. You'll probably need headphones to get the full experience, but it's kinda mind-blowing: the sound of the universe expanding
JohnLemonBot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:44:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
no
kopkiwi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:33:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's a shame.
RazerHail ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:46:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How can the universe expand faster than the speed of light if light speed is the theoretical upper limit? Is there a universe speed?
IthotItoldja ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 00:00:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The speed of light is the limit of how fast objects can move through space. That restriction is not applied to how quickly space itself can expand.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:18:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it a wall? Or is it just a vast void between universes?
bless_ure_harte ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:59:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yog-Sothoth and Azathoth are on the other side of that
Kahzgul ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 19:36:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's also not black. In an infinite universe, what you're looking at, anywhere you look in the sky at any time is either a star, or an object directly between you and a star that is blocking the light of that star. What we think of as black only seems so because the other stars we can see at night are so bright they dwarf the power of the light of the stars that is reaching us from the blackness.
Watch this video of a zoom in to a "black" section of the sky as taken from the Hubble space telescope
evilution382 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:28:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's actually quite amazing, thanks for sharing!
Kahzgul ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:22:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
you're welcome!
colorio111 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:01:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Kahzgul ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:58:44 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
fixed.
infernon_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:16:48 on September 23, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or, in a curved universe, if there was a straight line without anything in the way, it would loop back around and you would essentially be looking towards the back of your head
GaloombaNotGoomba ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:52:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or not. The observable universe is finite.
iamsuprmn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:44:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Gorgon
[deleted] ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 16:33:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
FrismFrasm ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 17:39:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In other words,
Nebula_Tricky ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:45:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The main thing about the vastness of the universe that really dumbfounded me recently is the fact that there are stars light we will never see, but our kids may, or their kids may etc.
There are stars whose light hasn't traveled a far enough distance for us to see them yet, and that can be due to recent formation, or just the immeasurable distance in light years away from us here on Earth.
Benjirich ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:06:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But at the time our kids kids might see that star it maybe doesnโt even exist anymore.
tdrichards74 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:39:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I saw a gif one time where the Hubble telescope zoomed into a seemingly black part of the night sky, and it found like 10 billion galaxies or some crazy shit.
Also, astronauts described the sky on the dark side of the moon as a sheet of white.
lurklurklurkPOST ยท 730 points ยท Posted at 13:47:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does God have free will?
God is Omnicient, knowing literally everything that has, is, and will happen.
Therefore God knows what it will do next at all times.
Does God choose that action, or is it chosen for it?
EDIT: guys its a thought experiment, wether god exists or not is irrelevant to it, as is wether you believe or not. Its a hypothetical.
Byizo ยท 142 points ยท Posted at 15:52:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or does free will suggest that there is a near infinite web of possibilities based on everyone's decisions, small or large, that they make every day and those decisions steadily collapse our reality into a single thread? But even then you're thinking in the realm of time. It's kind of hard to think about something that is beyond time, existing everywhere at every moment, especially that everything we know is based on the passing of time.
So maybe the right question is "Can something not constrained by time have free will, or make decisions at all?"
Kahzgul ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 19:32:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like where you're going. It begs the question "Can something not constrained by time take action?" Because the very act of doing something implies a before the thing was done and an after.
BlazingFox ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:08:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it would be harder for something that experiences time to have free will. All arguments about free will refer to an event like a human thought or action and it's relation to other events.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:50:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Y'all need to read the Dune series
Wasthereonce ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:24:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think in God's case that there must be a will that can expand further than our free will. Perhaps a predefined will, but the word "will" is not correct to describe God. God exists outside of space and time, being omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
God knows all that will happen because of omniscience, but he also exists at all times because of his omnipresent nature. If God is omnipotent, he has the power to create our entire existence down to every last detail in an instant. I would argue that he is not constrained by free will because he has no need to be. So all human choices constrained by free will have already been decided by God within the instant he created everything, but as humans, we have a perception of free will because we live within a linear timeline that cannot be reversed.
CharB1 ยท 63 points ยท Posted at 18:32:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Perhaps if we take that God is the unmoved mover and therefore unchanging in his will, he has free will to do anything, but since his will never changes or has conflict, his actions follow the same will. Since we're humans and our wills differ depending on what her we feel happy, angry, sad, or perhaps change because of percieved threats, our wills change in the moment. But since God doesn't change, his will would likewise stay the same. And from the unmoved mover we would know that our creation is from his will. So everything that happens past, present, and future. Has already been decided since God would be outside of time
guithrough123 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:01:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well said, it's a hard concept but this is what I believe God to be also
dust4ngel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:40:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this doesn't make sense though: if god is omniscient, he knows what he will do, but if he knows what he will do, then his actions are predetermined and thus not free. therefore if god is omniscient, he does not have free will.
CharB1 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:42:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well that's a loop of him not being to be do what he wants because he always knows what he wants. Either way he still has free will because Gods will is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow since he is outside of time, and since his will is not changed
DuplexFields ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:56:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here's another one: an author writes a story in which there's an omniscient God as a character, such as C.S. Lewis' Aslan. If the author decides not to allow it, God doesn't know He's in a fictional story.
DarkskinJesus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:01:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So god can see everything that could be. That would mean that he is not bound to our reality and even though we experience time once he could experience all of time. Maybe that means that we live our lives with set paths that we can choose i.e. Free will. So maybe there's a version of you that could become president or a movie star. It might not be who you actually become but the potential is there
WhyLater ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 22:30:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This concept is nonsensical. What does it mean to be "outside of time"? In order to be said to exist, a thing must have a presence in spacetime. So logically, for something to be "outside of time", it must not exist.
Edit: Before you downvote and reply with the thought experiment involving 2-dimensional beings observing the 3rd dimension, think โ how many 2-dimensional creatures have you observed?
ghostofrethal ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 00:11:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's only nonsensical given the way that we perceive time. It's like a 2D doodle trying to understand the concept of depth perception.
WhyLater ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:33:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's only a thought experiment. We have no reason to believe that something can actually "exist outside of a dimension". It's only fantasy.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 04:27:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
WhyLater ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:43:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
...No. That is not an actual scientific observation or theory. At best, the 5th dimension is a mathematical abstraction. Some quantum physicists hypothesize that the interactions between subatomic particles can be qualified as a "5th dimension", but that's really abstract stuff. Like, String Theory.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:18:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
WhyLater ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:26:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We have no reason to believe that such a thing is possible, or even makes sense. To view something requires light, which exists quite fundamentally within spacetime. Sure, I can imagine a being "looking at spacetime from without", but I can imagine all sorts of magical beings that don't comport with reality.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:20:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
WhyLater ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:35:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're inadvertently making my point. Google's definition of 'philosophy': "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline." Abstract ideas of "outside of existence" do not fall under the purview of serious philosophy.
Why would me being either angry or an atheist discredit my points in the least? Now you're just trying to poison the well. I'm quite finished with this line of discussion; I hope you are able to view things more skeptically and objectively in the future.
boilerkunze ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 19:20:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am not a Christian but grew up one. One of my favorite books was Blink by Ted Dekker. In it, the main character develops the ability to see multiple potential futures based on his choice. For most of the book, he uses this to show that God cannot be omniscient, if his choice affects the future.
The explanation actually makes sense as far as apologetics tend to go. God is outside time. He doesn't "experience" the world and time the way we do. And our entire concept of free will depends on time. Choosing something is a temporal act. So basically, it would be impossible to understand the ways God works because all of our understanding in confined to this universe and God doesn't work that way.
Like I said, I don't believe this, but as a concept, I think it could actually work logically.
abcPIPPO ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 18:14:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This question implies a personified God.
In my view God doesnโt have personality or a mind. Living things have minds, living things can think, choose and feel. I think God is just a force that pushes us to action.
Water doesnโt choose to flow, it just flows.
seancurry1 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 20:24:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And while a specific drop of water may not know that there's a southward bend in the river a mile ahead, the river itself knows every turn and ebb of its entire path.
Farmer771122 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:16:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm pretty sure it's been proven that anything capable of knowing literally all information in our universe, would have to literally be a universe.
Coroxn ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 20:26:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, any 'proof' like that would revolve around nonsense assumptions on how thinking works. Unless there's a really cool experement ala 'no hidden variables' that I don't know about.
Farmer771122 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:47:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
not necessarily. start with the idea that you can't encode the full set of characteristics about a single atom's full quantum state, velocity, position, etc, on anything smaller than an atom. then extrapolate up from there.
dellett ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:56:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How can you prove that's true, though? And what makes anyone sure that God would need to encode information in order to know it?
Farmer771122 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:15:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can't. I'm not good enough at that sort of thing. But I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it was proven.
Well, touchรฉ, I suppose if god's not constrained by the laws of physics, then no proofs from physics would apply. If that's your belief, then I guess I have to bow out. :-) But now we're more in the realm of theology than logic.
Coroxn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:25:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, that in itself is an assumption that stuff like entanglement to a certain degree defies.
Farmer771122 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:10:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
how does entanglement defy it?
HellWolf1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:04:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thinking this way, there being a God or not is by any meaningful definition indistinguishable
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:34:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly. I believe some way or another something had to be experienced for reasons that can't be explained, nothingness couldn't take being nothing any longer and exploded into the universe as we know it which decided to scatter at random parts of our universe and after so many years and trillions upon trillions of natural reactions it somehow our someway needed to experience itself, see itself, feel itself, hear itself, etc. which is where life came to be. Whatever the reason is, this was meant to be experienced. God is real, just not our idea of it. We have no idea, so we have to come up with our own, and that's the beauty of it, isn't it?
Novapophis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:36:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right but an all powerful God could make himself personified so your argument is invalid.
abcPIPPO ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:49:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even the idea of God being all powerful isn't strictly connected to the definition of God, that's just one view. For me, God doesn't do anything actively.
9bananas ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:08:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
god not doing anything actively literally makes it the opposite of "omnipotent"... (incompetent? is that like actually the right word?).
also it would imply god has no will, therefore it has no morals, therefore worshipping it is pointless, since it couldn't reward OR punish you anyway (and if an afterlife existed, it wouldn't be up to it who enters which variation of it)...also makes the bible an entirely arbitrary work of fiction in the first place, since god has no will and therefore didn't tell anybody anything.
so...yeah...god kinda has to be actively engaged with his creation by definition, or the whole concept kinda falls apart.
sidenote: you might not be talking strictly about a biblical god, so for completeness sake i wanted to add that this holds true for all variations of "godhood" i can think of right now. if it's just a passive force you might as well call it "the standard model"
sidenote2: in case you thought about a god that isn't actively engaged, but still enforces it's "rules"/morals somehow without doing it itself, then god is basically a computer, which is both terrifying and kinda boring...
don't wanna sound like a dick or anything, you just got me thinking a lot... i find your concept interesting!
trollcitybandit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:45:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are the closest things in our universe to our idea of God. We are the only known beings of any sort that consciously create things with original thought and ideas rather than just natural instinct. We literally created God, not vice versa. We essentially are Gods!
Novapophis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:30:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't disagree with the notion, however it would seem that phrases like "all powerful" would have to contain the ability to actively do things
batsofburden ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:53:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
All powerful might not imply magical powers, just scientific powers such as creating space/time etc.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:53:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But why call it a "god" then?
Detach50 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:33:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A rose by any other name? All the words and terms are made up. Call it blankie if you like.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 23:10:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
From a Christianโs perspective: God created time and the concept of time, and therefore he is not bound to it. He exists in all times that have ever been or ever will be all at once. And the question you pose becomes moot because he also exists OUTSIDE of time.
That is to say, when God created this universe (which contains time) he did not confine himself to this universe.
The concept of omnipresence means that God is present in his same form at all points of time and space. He fills up all time and space, yet he also exists outside of it simultaneously.
boazofeirinni ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:59:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This perspective also assumes that God is subordinate to time.
If God created EVERYTHING, than didnโt he also create time? If so, is he subjected to it? If he isnโt, than he may experience time in a non-linear way.
Also, in Christianity, thereโs not only a concept of โfree willโ, but also โGodโs natureโ. He is limited by his own nature. Hence the โcan he make a rock he couldnโt liftโ question. Well no. His qualities of โpowerโ is infinite. So he couldnโt do that. He doesnโt have absolute free will, just as we donโt.
Itโs something Iโve been asked a lot as a pastor in training by kids and teens. Iโve thought about it and thatโs what Iโve come to.
But the question becomes, when God makes a decision, is it him or his nature that determine it? Well, he is his nature. I wouldnโt differentiate the two. Just as you can ask, if a husband loves his wife, is showing that love a choice or was the choice made for him? Iโd say thereโs elements of both.
Those are my thoughts :D
Kahzgul ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:31:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The implication here is that God experiences time in the same manner that we do, constantly discovering events from one moment to the next. That is not how an omnipotent being would function, should one exist. Far more likely God would be observing the whole canvas at once, as it were, all of the time, and would be free to manipulate and change it anywhere at any moment, and know the repercussions of those changes before making them. What god does "next" to you may have been done by god at the very moment of creation.
If god exists at all.
lukelorian ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:24:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm generally agnostic, and I think this is a matter of changing the word will to can.
He knows everything that has, is, and can happen. If he does exist and care, then he knows we have the options, and which option is selected dictates our place.
Thecoolestham ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:01:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I appreciate your non gendering of God. Reading through the heroes journey made me realize just how bad the idea that god is gendered. God transcends gender, age, race and, most any other thing people could use to define.
amishcatholic ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:08:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This assumes there is a "next" with God. Most conceptions of God (at least in Christian theology; not sure if this is the case in other religions) see Him as being beyond time, dwelling in an eternal Now--that everything He does He does simultaneously (as we say it--there's always a problem applying human concepts and words to God) since He is not bound by time.
LockmanCapulet ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 07:25:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can't speak for other monotheistic faiths, but some Christians (myself included) believe God to transcend our understanding of time.1 (2 Peter 3:8, for instance.) Ergo, referring what he "will do" and "has done" loses meaning from what we would define them as. All simply is as God wills. (apologies for poor explanation, I'm no theologian)
1 Note that this is not a universally agreed-upon belief; some cite the frequent vocabulary referring to God as "everlasting" and "forever" as meaning that time does somehow apply to Him.
amsterdam_BTS ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:21:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Neither. The parameters of this thought experiment are human, and therefore do not apply to the divine. God, should it exist, functions outside the scope of our comprehension.
qwertx0815 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:51:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's just lazy...
amsterdam_BTS ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:56:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe.
I don't think it makes it any less true, and I also think it puts responsibility for our actions and lives squarely on our own shoulders.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:18:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I just realized this is what was happening to Dr. Manhattan in Watchmen!
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:08:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:28:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know, It confused me before I read this comment and then it all be came clear.
xcelleration ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:24:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think just because God is all knowing doesn't mean that He can't choose what He does. Perhaps it's like knowing every possibility that can happen, but you can choose that possibility. Or perhaps this can even be linked with the multiverse theory. He chooses everything that can happen and will happen.
PolloMagnifico ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:09:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God is omniscient, meaning he knows everything that there is to know.
But whenever I think of this in a religious context, I like to think that free will is a gift from god, a small spark of the divine to set us apart as his children. He doesn't know what we're going to do any better than we do. But he does know how we think and our reasons for making a decision.
TheHardWalker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:47:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've always struggled with the beginning of the Bible (not a Christian nor a believer, but I just find it interesting). In the proces of creating the universe, earth, the sun and the moon, mankind etc. God goes through a proces of evaluation.
As I read this, this opens up for God not being 'perfect' in the sense that it makes it possible for God to reach the opposite conclusion. That God created something he/she/it decided wasn't good. It's like an experiment, but in that nature God is prone to make mistakes and therefore - again, as I read it - must in this phase either 1) Not be aware that God is omniscient and good or 2) not be so in the strict sense that the evaluating nature opens for wrong/bad choices.
Edit: I know it's a bit far from the original post, but I figured it wouldn't do any harm posting it here. So I did and I saw that it was good
Tibbit_tenqudi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:49:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes
give_me_bewbz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:28:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think in this scenario, we are limited by our 4 dimensional nature, and our understanding of linear time.
To such a being as this, there is no time. Everything is just another place. An example would be the wormhole aliens from DS9. "Time" isn't a concept to them in the same way we experience. If they want to visit "last thursday", they just go there.
From our perspective, they appear to move around in time, but from their perspective, they're all those places, and everywhere else they've ever been or will be, all at once.
I'm failing to explain it, but basically time is to them in the same way distances are to us. To us, it takes time to move distance. Perhaps there is some further dimension beyond time that it "takes to move in time" for an atemporal God.
TL;DR: I rambled.. but God wouldn't have free will as we understand it from our perspective, it would simply "be".
martixy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:16:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is literally an unanswerable question as it falls in the category of self-referential crap.
cutelilmoth ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:38:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Idk man, in that case it doesnโt matter what I do, everything is final anyway
MagMaggaM ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:46:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Similiar to how God is, by definition, contradictory to itself and the world around us (if we are to go by the srandard western definition of God).
Simply put, the theory works on 5 statements:
1. God is Omnipotent.
2. God is Omniscient.
3. God is Omnipresent.
4. God is Omnibenevolent.
5. There is suffering in the world.
The problem is caused by the fifth statement, as we experience suffering in the world, but, if statements 1 through 4 are true, then this cannot be. Simply put, due to (1); so it has the power to stop suffering, due to (2); so it has the knowledge to stop suffering, due to (3); God is present to stop the suffering, due to (4), God is all-good, and because letting us suffer is morally bad, he would stop us suffering. However, there is suffering in the world, so there is a contradiction. One could go down the vein "what is suffering?" to refute this, but then again, you would have to answer "what is suffering?".
Again, this is going by the traditional western theist idea of God, so don't be pulling out no Vishnu or Zeus or whatever to contradict this.
Detach50 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:43:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue that free will is the cause of suffering. If one believes that humanity was created with free will, then every event is the culmination of choices made up to that point. If one cannot choose between good or bad, do either exist? Would one be able to distinguish between suffering and not suffering, if there was nothing different to experience? If there is truly no choice, then everything happens as it should; there is no good, and there is no bad, there is no control. Without control, things just happen. Entropy is neither good nor bad, it just is; there's no suffering, there are only the happenings of the universe.
MagMaggaM ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:36:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But If God is omniscient, and created the universe, then we cannot have free will, as he would know our every action when he created the universe the way he did, so everything would be pre determined.
Detach50 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:05:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just because God knows what is going to happen, doesn't mean everything is predetermined. God is also omnipresent, existing outside our bounds off space and time. God can see every option and choice we could make. Just because you know the outcome, doesn't mean it's not free will.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:08:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He could choose to do the suboptimal thing purely for the sake of free will, and by doing so, being free will into existence.
A better paradox would be, is the universe deterministic? Did he choose to exercise what he thought was free will because everything up to that point lead him to do so? In effect nullifying his free will?
Also you could roll dice so many times in so many random ways as to make something as close to truly random as possible and make a decision on that, but maybe even then it wouldn't be free will because if the universe is deterministic then those dice were destined to land that way.
If the universe is deterministic, is it right to punish criminals since they had no free will? A victim of destiny and circumstance? Does the nessecity of setting precedent out weigh the right of a sentient being to live?
Dicktremain ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:15:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As son as I read your post I knew I was going to write this exact response. But I still made the choice to write it, this response was not chosen for me.
Elronnd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:39:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Option one: he knows what would happen next if he didn't do anything. He can choose to do something and change that. But he's never uncertain.
Option two (kind of the same but different because it precludes free will): he knows what would happen next because he decided that's what would happen.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:18:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"The one became many so I may know myself". I could imagine omniscience + immortality getting boring. For example if you know every possible permutation of everything which can happen forever, I feel you'd eventually make it so you're not
thr33pwood ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:42:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or is God the act of choosing?
monsto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:14:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I love how a couple of these posts have to redirect peoples attention away from the shiny, red button.
It's stunning to see how many people simply can't think abstractly.
C1ank ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:30:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But if God is as you describe it'd be at least fourth dimensional, at which point it's like a flatlander trying to discuss how a 3D being would exist using only 2D logic.
Once you start bringing that level of being into the equation you more or less have to throw out the equation because every answer is "we don't know, can't know, and will never know, because even if we could rationally describe it we'd not be able to wrap our heads around it."
I mean, I'd say yes, free will is there as much as free will would be there for any living thing, it just plays out simultaneously at all times past present and future, or at least in a non-linear fashion.
Or, if you know literally everything that ever has and ever will happen then are you really an entity anymore, or have you become information? Are you now a map, or guide, of sorts? Have you ceased to be a being that perceives information and simply become that information you perceive?
Basically, my point is that if something were at a stage of knowing everything, they'd be so beyond the limits of our comprehension that arguing these points becomes irrelevant and impossible to logically rationalize.
MerloTerania ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:37:50 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My perception of god is much like the Tao, as in the Chinese tradition of 'Taoism'. It is being. It is everything. It is consciousness itself, manifested in every conceivable and inconceivable form. It is all knowing. It's not as in a 'he', not even an 'it' but it is just pure being. It just is. Non action, everything and nothing. Forwards and backwards, up and down. Black and white. Pure stillness.
wildmonkeymind ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:13:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even without omniscience, can one really have free will?
What does it mean to decide? Did you decide to decide, or did your decision just happen? Behind every decision is there not the spontaneous arising of that decision?
This applies to men and God alike.
Sheevy_Boi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:51:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God is always good, but he can choose in neutral matters. For example, he can make trees be blue or green
ImReflexess ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:09:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like this, it's like saying if God is all knowing, then how can he be all-good at the same time? He can't, it's morally not possible.
gaslightlinux ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:58:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The concept of a God would be to beyond these concepts, so they would both have and not have, and not both have and not have free will. It's how trinitarian logic works, and if you can make the leap of faith that God exists, then it makes perfect logical sense.
Jonmander ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:25:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I do not agree with the philosophy that God "KNOWS EVERYTHING". It's simply false. I think God has a sub-conscious, like us, that automatically handles all the fundamentals of existence (like breathing, heart pumping, etc.) In a similar way, YOUR BRAIN KNOWS EVERYTHING about your body, even though you don't know everything about your body consciously. Which in a way, your brain is omniscient, but only within the scope of your body, so it is with God.
salty3 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:45:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If God sees everything, does he also smell and taste everything? ;)
[deleted] ยท -10 points ยท Posted at 19:38:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
lurklurklurkPOST ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:38:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its just a logic experiment. I'm not religious.
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 00:11:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
lurklurklurkPOST ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:27:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We're both six years. You been here for that long and still dont source your comments?
proud_heretic ยท 279 points ยท Posted at 19:18:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consider the case of a woman walking through the desert with a full canteen of water.
Unbeknownst to her, a man secretly replaces her water with sand.
Further down the path, unbeknownst to her and without communicating with the first man, a second man steals her canteen.
The question is, who is morally responsible for her death of thirst. If the first man had not filled her canteen with sand, she still would have died of thirst, if the second man had not stolen the canteen, she would still die of thirst. It's an interesting case of a moral responsibility case which is overexplained. It seems that neither man is individually responsible, but instead they are together collectively responsible.
This is just an interesting problem that I came across recently in a seminar on Free Will and Moral Responsibility. It seems straightforward to say that the first man is responsible, but this doesn't seem to sufficiently explain the scenario.
BrokenSalsaJar ยท 359 points ยท Posted at 22:17:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The first man is responsible for her death, the second's just an asshole.
proud_heretic ยท 89 points ยท Posted at 22:41:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But if you consider the causal chain, the first seems no more morally responsible than the second. Both were under the impression that they were going to lead to the death of the woman.
polkergeist ยท 149 points ยท Posted at 23:45:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right. Theyโre both morally wrong, but only the first is responsible.
IdiotCharizard ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:58:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Regardless of the first man's actions, she would have died. How can he be responsible?
polkergeist ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 04:13:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Theyโre both morally in the wrong. However, by chance, the first man was responsible for her death. Had he not done anything, then by chance, the second man would have been responsible. Both assholes, both morally repugnant. The first one, in the case outlined above, signed her death warrant.
IdiotCharizard ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:19:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree here, I think that since neither of them could have changed the outcome of the woman dying by not acting, neither of them can be held individually accountable. As a unit, they can, and therefore they can only be considered guilty as a unit.
This is of course, from a philosophical standpoint. In actuality, the first man is guilty as you pointed out.
proud_heretic ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:47:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So what is the difference between moral wrongness and moral responsibility, are they both blameworthy? To the same degree?
Billy_Badass123 ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 01:42:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
She was dead anyways before the second stole her canteen.
bextaaaaar ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:53:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I second this question. The responsibility factor seems arbitrary.... ๐ค
DuplexFields ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:57:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Both attempted murder.
randomer206 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:09:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd say man slaughter tbh
FigNewtonium ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:21:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is not enough data given to determine if anyone has done anything morally wrong. All we know is there are two thieves and a careless person. She can lie in that sand blaming whoever she wants but there was only one player careless enough to walk into a desert without verifying their canteen. Sheโs responsible.
jaywalk98 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 04:45:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a thought experiment. They are meant to be taken at face value to "distill" a question to make it easier to answer. You aren't meant to look for more information about the specific situation.
Math_Blaster_ ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:10:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If she had wanted water before the second guy, she'd find sand.
If he didn't steal the water, she'd have water before guy two, she might have been hydrated enough to cross the desert, regardless of guy 2 stealing.
Morally they both suck, but her fate was specifically sealed due to guy 1
TheloniousPhunk ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:09:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, but moral ambiguity has nothing to do with responsibility.
Both are morally reprehensible, but only one is responsible.
The dude who stole the canteen did not cause her death, the man who replaced the water with sand did. Sure, dude #2 may have intended to kill her, and that will put him in the same moral grouping as dude #1... but dude #2 is still not responsible for her death.
DeveloperChris ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:40:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you intended to kill a person and then acted on killing that person where the outcome was predefined as well death (in other words there were no other forms of hydration and the desert was too large to cross without at least one drink).
Then what does it matter which order the actions came in?
abaker74 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:16:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Both are evil, one was just evil later
PmMeCartoonDogPorn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:06:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is the second man an ass if he stole the canteen to preserve his own life? (assuming he was under the assumption the canteen had water)
Batman_wears_Crocs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:30:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well with the first man, I understand it was a desert, if she had found water she could've stored it but the second took that option away.
asher18 ยท 56 points ยท Posted at 23:38:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Morally? Both
Both directly took actions that individually lead to her death. Whichever action results in the death is unimportant morally.
dsiluiel ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:46:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Okay sure. But now consider intent.
Stole the water to drink and survive on his own. Replaced water to be a dick/to kill.
Or.
Guy 1 shoots victim with intent to kill. He is now wounded but alive or he misses all together.
Guy 2 shoots victim with intent to harm or scare or protect. He is now dead.
Who is morally "wrong"?
Airilsai ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:58:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That changes the question. The initial question is "Who is morally responsible", which asher18 replies both. In your example, both would be morally responsible, or morally "wrong". The degree to which would be different, but they would still both be wrong.
dsiluiel ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:15:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This makes sense. Thanks!
ZeePirate ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:03:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Kinda explained that away pretty good
proud_heretic ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 00:35:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I think the interesting part is that they don't seem individually responsible, but instead they're responsible collectively. It's sort of a unique shared responsibility. Assigning blame to either of them seems to lack some fundamental explanatory power.
Limmy92 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:25:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the problem with this dilemma is that we are guided by law to make some objective decision. Law is guided by morality; It looks to be objective but is in fact arbitrary. Objectively, both men are responsible for the woman's death, though their individual motives could differ, making one's actions worse than the other. This need to be objective confuses the conclusion. Both men done a shitty thing and the woman is dead. If both men needed the water to survive are they less morally responsible than if they had had plenty of water? Are they deterministically victims of circumstance? Is the first thief responsible for the second thiefs death as well because he knowingly replaced water with sand? How can he be morally responsible for killing a man he never encountered, nor directly intervened? The world is absurdly complex and trying to be objective is just part of the human condition. I don't think it helps. This is the strongest argument I can make to back the cliche conclusion, it is what it is.
They_Call_Me_Dave ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:15:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They are actually both individually responsible for her death. If the first man acted alone, she would have died because her water was replaced with sand. If the second man acted alone, she would have died because her canteen was stolen. They each took separate action against her to leave her without water in the desert, and therefore they are both morally responsible for her death. The fact that they acted in concurrence with one another is just coincidental and does not relieve them of this moral responsibility.
9bananas ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:44:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
well i think it's a mistake to think of guilt as a binary state:
I'd say the first man carries a greater guilt, because he just about guaranteed her death. the second man merely attempted to kill her, but she was doomed at that point...
TomomiimomoT ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:58:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know what you mean when you say that neither man is individually responsible. The first is wholly responsible because he replaced her water with sand. Whether stolen or not by the second man, the first man would have caused her death.
ChuckDimeCliff ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:58:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whether or not the first man replaced the water with sand, the second man would have caused her death.
TomomiimomoT ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:31:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But the first man DID replace her water with sand! The story states that as a fact. The question didn't consider the possibility that the first man didn't replace the water with sand.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:39:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree. They're equally immoral people, but only the first guy is responsible
TomomiimomoT ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:02:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes!
megaman1744 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:56:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i gave this some thoght and came to the conclusion that it is still the first man mans fault entirely. If we made the scenario to something of equal importance like a sick woman with her medicine. If the first man replaces said medicine with sugar pills instead of the actual medicine, then the second comes and steals it. The first is still responsible, because he took away the only life saving option that could've saved the woman and replaced it with something of no value. Whether or not the second man stole from her or not the woman still would've died with or without the stolen sugar pills.
proud_heretic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:12:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, but if the first man hadn't done anything she still would have died, his participation was not necessary, and certainly not sufficient, to cause her death.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:30:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Either person's participation alone is sufficient in causing her death.
proud_heretic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:34:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're absolutely right, I don't know what I was thinking. They're both sufficient but neither are necessary.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:12:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, at least one is necessary. And in the case of what actually happens, only the first one was necessary.
proud_heretic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:14:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, in the scenario presented, neither is necessary.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:16:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But one of them had to act wrongly to screw her over. So one of them is necessary, but it doesn't matter which one.
proud_heretic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:55:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the whole point of the thought problem, neither is individually necessary, they're somehow collectively necessary.
give_me_bewbz ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:40:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The first is responsible for her death, but both are on equal moral standing.
Simple.
Both took actions they understood could lead to her death. Therefore they are both morally equal.
Only one's actions directly led to her death, so he's the one responsible for that.
They're two separate issues.
dflategraff ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:22:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If the second thief dies then whoโs morally responsible?
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:37:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think this conversation might be relevant to your question.
Basically, the first man is only responsible for one person's death.
SLAYERone1 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:44:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you think about it the first guys responisble for 2 deaths because the second guy clearly needed that water too. By stealing it himself he condemned both of them to death.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:23:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By replacing the water with sand, he is responsible for only one of their deaths because someone was going to die either way. If he didn't do it, then either the woman dies by not having water or the man dies by not stealing her water.
SLAYERone1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:26:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or they shared and potentialy both survived had he not stolen the water to begin with there was still the possibility for change regardless of the seconds mans actions
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:34:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The second guy was always going to steal her water. It's one of the assumptions of the thought experiment, so we can throw out them possibly sharing. My hypothetical situation of the first man not replacing the water is to prove that by replacing the water he is responsible for only one death even if both people die because one of them was already going to die.
SLAYERone1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:41:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whos to say the second man wouldnt have a change of heart or feel guilty about his actions by eliminating that possibility he removes the opportunity it presents
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:44:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If he stole the bottle when it had sand in it thinking it was water, then why would he act any differently if it was actually water? His knowledge is the same either way, so his actions will be, too.
SLAYERone1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:03:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Upon stealing it and discovering its sand theres nothing he can do but if it had been water then he may have felt guilt about what hed done or realised that if he shared it maybe both would survive.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:15:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sorry I didn't understand what you were saying before, but that's actually a very interesting point. This is the first thing with this scenario I'm not sure about. I still think they're equally evil even though only the first guy is responsible because I don't want to keep adding more and more to the situation. Like if a third thief stole the bottle, he's not worse just because the woman and the second thief might have shared the water.
SLAYERone1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:21:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its cool and i think your right the more you add to it the more it defeats the point but as a closed system pf just 3 people its kind of a case of not being able to comment on what "might" have happened after all the second thief could just as well have kept the water himself. Plus if there was only enough water for one person to survive then is it necissarily evil to do what you have to in order to survive? Sure you condemn someone else by your actions but you also spare your loved ones the pain of loosing you and at the same time have your whole life ahead of you to do as much good pr bad as you want. For all you know the person you stole from is a serial killer and you just did the world a favour.
shakazulut ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:57:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting. How about we change the scenario slightly to test assumptions?
What if the woman knew the first man replaced the water with sand?
What if what she thought was water was actually poison and the men tried to save her life by replacing it with sand and then taking it from her altogether?
What if it was actually water but the men thought it was poison?
Writing this it seems like the question is: Is this about the intent or the result?
Following the intend path, what if the first man intended to kill but would have enabled the woman to live if the second man, who intended to save her, hadn't intervened in a way that resulted in her death? Is the first man responsible for her death?
Take the same scenario with the result path. Is the second man responsible for her death?
I'll admit, mind blown.
proud_heretic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:43:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're hitting on one of the fundamental debates in ethics here, which is awesome. That is, is moral responsibility associated with intent or consequence.
All of these are interesting variations.
If the woman knew, it seems more reasonable to blame the first man alone, but fundamentally I don't think the moral blame shifts at all.
If it was poison... Here it seems they had good intent, but merely replaced one fatal thing with another, and so are not responsible for her death because the initial link of the causal chain was unassisted with them. All they did was alter her state, not change her fate in a harmful way.
If they thought it was poison, then that is one of the more complicated cases. Their intent was good, but their action caused harm (legally, this is what usually matters but law is not synonymous with morality).
Very interesting all around.
Couldntpicagoodone13 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:18:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think morally speaking it's always about intent. If I fully intended to kill a man but missed my shot, then I'm no different than the guy that didn't miss, morally speaking. Now I'm not a murderer and he is but in my eyes that's not a morality thing, which is where I think my views differ from someone else who believes it's based on the result. I dont view the result of something as the morality part of it simply because of how many variables goes into the actual outcome of an event.
OldDarte ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:46:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's "intentions vs outcomes" problem.
Say a man tries to save a drowning child, but fails. Can it be said that he did something good? If you consider his intentions, then yes. If you consider the results, then the answer is no.
Now imagine you wanted to support that man and said that his effort alone was a good deed. You don't want to be harsh on the fella. But on the next day, you learn that another man tried to poison someone, but failed due to not getting the ingredients right. If you've chosen to comfort the previous man before, then by that logic you should forgive this man for trying to poison someone - after all, no harm was done.
What we can take away from it is that morality is a malleable thing and is mostly affected by our emotions than our logic.
Sorry if I butchered your language.
EXTRAVAGANT_COMMENT ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:09:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
what no that's backwards. if you comfort the first man, then you are saying that intentions matter and not results. which mean you think the second man is guilty because his intentions were to kill.
OldDarte ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:39:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's exactly what I meant. You know, a pat on the back with the words "you tried".
rorschach323 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:01:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think this:
follows from the examples you give. Let me try to demonstrate:
For ease of reference, let's call the person who tries to save a drowning child, but fails, Adam and the person who tries to poison someone, but fails because he's bad at poison-making, Bill.
If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that we would forgive Bill if we focus on results. After all, Bill didn't kill anyone. However, the quoted portion above suggests that you could comfort Adam by the same logic, i.e.: by focusing on the results.
But that's actually the focus that is not comforting to Adam. The result of his attempt to save a drowning child is, well, a dead child. So actually what comforts Adam is looking at the intent, the very same focus by which we can (rightly) consider Bill morally reprehensible.
All this is to say that, in both cases you pose, looking at intent gets you the right result (i.e. Adam=good, Bill=bad), whereas looking at the results gets you the wrong answer (i.e. Adam and Bill are morally equivalent!). There's no moral dilemma here at all.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:52:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Morally, their intent is what's important, not the outcome. That's why "attempted murder" is still a crime.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:35:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But actual murder does have a worse punishment than attempted murder, right?
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:52:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not familiar with the specific law regarding sentencing in either case but I think it does. Which seems strange to me, to account for competence in an issue that should deal only with intent.
rosettetourette ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:45:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The first man is responsible for her death, the second one just stole sand from her and I dont think she had a huge need for sand.
Mastahamma ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:53:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The thing is that the second man had the intent to steal the woman's water - he didn't know it was sand. Had the first man not done his deed, the woman's death would've been caused by the second one.
MadeBrazen ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:03:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By stealing her water, the first man ensures her death. He is morally wrong and responsible.
From here, she is only a woman with a bucket of sand. The second has only stolen a bucket of sand. Morally wrong, yes (because of the implication) but not morally responsible.
bananapeel ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:32:39 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Related: if a firing squad shoots a person condemned to death, one of the people on the firing squad has a blank. No one knows which person has a blank. This gives each person on the firing squad a slight "out".
JargonR3D ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:36:29 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like to think about blame a lot. I've come to the conclusion that a thing that happens (woman dying of thirst) takes a lot of other things happening, (she goes out in the desert, man replaces water with sand, desert is hot because of sun, sun exists because of gravity, woman exists because womans dad boned womans mom, man exists because of previous reason and so on and so forth.) to make the first thing happen, woman dies of thirst. So its a bunch of peoples and things faults. Not the man that did the stole the empty canteen though.
DeveloperChris ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:36:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Easy. Both they intended to deprive her of live giving water. Therefore both are responsible.
And whats gender got to do with it?
randomer206 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:08:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The first man is responsible. He stole the valuable, life-saving water and replaced it with sand. The second guy only stole the sand. He is morally deficient for stealing the sand, but morally responsible for her death? No.
In that scenario, the woman is also partly to blame for her own death. She went in to the desert, presumably alone, with only one canteen and trusted both men enough that they were able to steal her water and sand without her noticing. I've never been to the desert, but I know I'd take more than one fucking canteen if I were to go.
CozySlum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:30:00 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"...if the second man had not stolen the canteen, she would still die of thirst." That answers your question. First man is morally responsible for her death, second man is just a thieving asshole. Chance and circumstance determine a lot, like when a drunk driver kills someone while another, just as drunk driver, makes it home without incident.
wordsworths_bitch ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:18:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the woman is for treating something so important with negligence like that.. twice.
proud_heretic ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:10:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a thought experiment about moral responsibility, not an account of real events
wordsworths_bitch ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:32:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
mmhm, and the woman is responsible. play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
psykoeplays ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:39:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
easy, first guy killed both.
gyromorgian ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:58:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would have been funnier if it was Anakin Skywalker instead of an unkown woman.
soomuchcoffee ยท 299 points ยท Posted at 16:13:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I only got a minor in philosophy, so this may be a rather mediocre explanation. But what killed me, and I never read any satisfactory explanation of, pertained to how quickly our language fails us.
So like the professor goes "what's this" and points to a chair. "That's a chair" says everyone.
Why?
It basically doesn't matter what you say, you can't give a satisfactory answer. "It has four legs and a back," meets "so it could a unique table, but nobody suspects this is an odd table."
So then you get into like, well you understand objects via their connection and interaction with other objects. "So it's a chair because we sit on it" is met, annoyingly and unsurprisingly with "you can sit on a rock, but you never mistake a rock for a chair."
It goes on like this. You get into Plato and "universals and particulars" and I to this day have no idea what his point was. The allegory of the cave isn't hard to understand, but it also doesn't really explain anything in a satisfying way.
You can get into phenomenology, which in my experience is a cruel joke meant to make you feel insane. And then we got into Heidegger, who takes the onus off the object in question by making the observer an object personified (kinda?) and I have no fucking idea at all. Being & Time is over my ears. I sort of, KINDA OF, get what he's going for, but how he might be correct entirely eludes me.
So I have half a degree in philosophy. And if you ask me, philosophically, what makes a chair a chair, I just shrug and say "that's the word we picked I guess, if it's stupid and works it's not that stupid."
FrismFrasm ยท 104 points ยท Posted at 17:52:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think I'm missing a key angle here because I'm not quite getting this one.
To play devil's advocate; we see the chair and know it's a chair. We qualify it as a chair rather than a table because we recognize the design of the thing and it matches what we know of a chair. It could be a unique table, and we would have made the simple mistake due to it checking off more boxes as a chair when we look at it. Had this been the case I would argue that our perception has failed us (due to the counter-intuitive design of the table), not our language.
We don't mistake a rock from a chair because we know that a chair is something designed for sitting, whereas a rock was not.
Have I missed it?
soomuchcoffee ยท 48 points ยท Posted at 18:06:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You haven't missed it at all!
I think the point is simply that you can poke holes in any explanation. Like, because of the nature of art (I GUESS?) you could design a gray blob intended for sitting, and it looks just like a rock. It may be so convincing that you mistake it for just a rock. BUT NO IT'S A CHAIR!
Basically, I think if there is any reasonable action to take on the issue, it's along the lines of what others have said. It's a quirk of language and not of reality. Like, because our language can't adequately describe something doesn't mean in reality we have nothing.
Like many philosophical things, it's just sort of an interesting thought experiment.
DuplexFields ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:00:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are categories of form, function, and intention. If I make a chair that cannot hold the weight of a sitter, it fails in function, but not form and intention. If I sit on a table, it is a chair.
mullerjones ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:58:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One example of this I ran into a lot back in high school in some discussions I had with a friend is about art.
What exactly is art? Itโs very hard to define since you can almost always find some specific case where your definition doesnโt fit and youโd still categorize that thing as art.
The only characteristic we could come up with that we couldnโt find a disproving case was that art demands human interaction.
You can say that a chimp can make a painting, but Iโd argue that the painting only is art because weโre there to see it and assign that value to it. If the chimp created something like this in nature, without us to look at it, it wouldnโt be art.
Likewise, a naturally occurring sound or event isnโt art until someone comes along and says โthis is artโ, so itโs that naming that creates the art.
But that was it, there was no other idea we could have about how to define it that didnโt fall apart with some example.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 11:28:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Modern "art" is not actually art so your question falls apart immediately.
mullerjones ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:39:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why not? Other than your opinion, that is?
Kuhnmeisterk ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:54:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the real issue it raises isnt so much about things like chairs which are easily identified and communicated with another person. Its more about how we all think we know what is meant by a chair but we all have different impressions and ideas in our mind of what that means. At this very moment you and I are thinking of chairs but many of their qualities in our imagination are different. But they are similar enough to convey meaning such as in these comments about them.
Whats gets harder from there is communicating about things that can be quite different for us. A pretty easy and obvious example are feelings. My concept of love and yours are very different based on our experiences with love and loved ones. Matbe better to discuss would he hate. Maybe you only ever heard that word in a very serious context like "I hate murder" or "I hate Hitler". Then you meet me and one day I say "i hate tacos". I have not adequately communicated what I mean to you because you think I'm implying tacos are some of the most degenerate, evil things in existence.
Sorry for the long post, im bored.
Kahzgul ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:45:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're on the right track. Language is a construct an as such it follows from agreed upon definitions. "Ohio" is a state in North America if you're speaking English, or it's a common greeting if you're speaking Japanese. What you call a thing doesn't matter as long as everyone involved understands the meaning of the words you're using.
What makes that a chair and this a rock is that we're speaking English and those are what we call those things in this language. No more, no less. It's an abstraction.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:47:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It can be a chair or a table if you want it to be. Chair and table are just abstract forms we label things with. We might stud our toe in a pitch black room on the table, and say, "fuck that fucking chair!" And yet it actually be the table. However in the moment, the table is just as much a chair as any chair we've ever seen.
Point is, chair and table are thoughts, in reality they are wood, screws, and nails, paint, whatever. One man's chair could be another man's table.
clutchheimer ยท 69 points ยท Posted at 17:31:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is a chair because we have defined that to be a chair. It has no inherent "chairness", but our language identifies it as such for the sake of communication and clarity.
Kahzgul ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 19:43:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the right answer. Language is an abstraction we've attached meaning to in order to convey meaning quickly to one another. One can describe the properties of a chair or not, and the chair remains either way. It may be called "An Ultraluxe Tiffany Tuscany Galaxy Recliner" or it may be called simply "chair" but the calling it of those words has no impact on the actual condition of the object in question, but rather only has an impact on how we communicate with one another about that object.
In short, the thing that makes it a chair is that we've decided, in this language, to call that thing a chair.
EighthScofflaw ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:14:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is missing the point. The challenge isn't to explain why the object is called a chair, that's a boring etymological question, but rather to explain how exactly everyone managed to identify it as belonging to the set of objects that we call "chairs".
Kahzgul ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:00:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Which, entirely, has to do with the definition of the word, "chair."
EighthScofflaw ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:23:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The definition presumably picks out a set of objects, so, yes, it does have something to do with the definition.
Kahzgul ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:23:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm glad we agree.
EighthScofflaw ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:12:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is missing the point. No one came into the room and told them that the object is a chair. There is no specific reference "in our language" that picks out that particular object as being a chair. They all managed to see an object for the first time and realize that it was a chair.
Aikeko ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:36:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not a philosophical question at all, it's a case of how we learn and apply our knowledge to make assumptions and predictions. That chair was a chair because it was similar to hundreds of others that we've seen and known to be chair. It's not that we inherently recognize chairs, we are simply making assumptions and collectively agreeing on a purpose of a widely-used object. This is exactly why /r/whatisthisthing and the similar are a thing.
EighthScofflaw ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:52:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's just begging the question. The problem is how we identify chairs in general, not a particular chair. How did you know all the previous chairs were chairs? By virtue of what is a chair a chair?
Aikeko ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:01:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By a lot of people agreeing to it being one. Things come in and out of use, there are people now who won't be able to identify a floppy disk because it's no longer in use. When something is not in use, the collective knowledge of it's purpose fades away and we can't tell what it is anymore because no one identified it for us.
As for identification in particular, there is a comment higher up that explains how we basically have a "list" of qualities that we "check" when identifying something. There are word games based entirely around guessing objects from descriptions of either elements or uses of said objects.
carbonetc ยท 82 points ยท Posted at 17:12:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Plato's Theory of Forms didn't really survive past Aristotle and the chair thing gives you a sense of why. What makes a chair a chair has more to do with neuroscience than with metaphysics. There are no "chairs" out in the universe; when we ask ourselves what makes a chair we're just peering into the messy, complicated, ever-shifting goings-on within our own brains as they try to relate things to other things.
If it makes you feel better I'm a philosophy grad student and I still don't understand Heidegger.
soomuchcoffee ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 17:21:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That does indeed make me feel better. I really wanted to get it. I couldn't even wrap my head around the framework though. I'm not sure I ever got deep into section 3, which I think was his vaguely nazi-sympathetic application of the whole thing. I could be mistaken though, I took classes over ten years ago.
commit_bat ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 19:43:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is however a periodic table
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:35:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah but there is a logical connection between the amount of protons, and where it resides in the periodic table. Chair is much more ambiguous. You are really just splitting hairs though. A chair is a chair because we perceive it as a chair, but we might go sit on it and it is actually cardboard. It was still a chair to us in the past.
It's all perception. Periodic table, even though it follows a simple logical form, is still an abstract system we overplayed to better understand physical materials. Hydrogen in really only an atom which has one proton, everything else is abstract.
Vortex_Gator ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:45:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But you can't eat off a periodic table, so it doesn't count.
/s
commit_bat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:54:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I periodically eat off a table, does that count?
Ascetue ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:51:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A survey of philosophers found that almost 40% are Platonists rather than nominalists. So.
carbonetc ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:01:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's interesting. I think we need more information though. There's a difference between a Platonist who believes that somewhere in another realm there's a platonic ideal of a chair, and a Platonist who thinks things like "numbers are mind-independent." I'd guess there are few of the former and many of the latter.
Ascetue ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:20:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, not even Plato thought that there was a form of a chair. Those were always demonstrations. Platonic Forms were always of natural kinds, which is where they are becoming philosophically useful today (e.g. David Armstrong)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:43:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ironic how some philosophers think there is a perfect form of philosophy to strive towards.
proud_heretic ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:56:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
From a fellow grad student, do Heidegger scholars even understand Heidegger?
Doubly so for Hegel.
ChevyChaseIsNice ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:07:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It seems the Platonic theory of forms did survive past Aristotle, there are philosophers like Aquinas and Augustinus that attempted to expand on it and it seems to have a relation to Christian thought.
I think, while there is a physical element to "a chair" there may also be a metaphysical element. Now i'm not a philosophy grad so please tear me a part where I'm wrong.
There is an ideal, perfect, eternal chair that exists outside of our reality. Each chair that we see is a representation of that ideal. Language is a tool for how we describe what we experience but if we didn't have language and tried out 2 different chairs, we would intuitively feel that one is somehow better than the other, more firm, more beautiful, etc. There is a standard of chairness that comes from some sort of intuition, not an external label.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:41:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is a perfect chair, but it's only abstract. In the physical world there are more perfect chairs, but no perfect chair, until you come up with the absolute perfect chair. At least in theory anyways. In reality your idea of perfection is both idosycratic, and constantly changing.
It would be possible to actually make you own personal perfect form of something if you had the time, and your idea of what that perfection was never changed. However this is fairly unrealistic so we are always stuck with more or less perfect chairs to compare.
We should strive for perfection, but not obsess over it. It is the ultimate goal but ultimately unreachable.
ChevyChaseIsNice ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:15:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think I mostly agree with you.
Our idea of perfection may always be changing but only because we're chasing some actualized eternal ideal, the ideal doesn't change and by definition it can't but our methods of trying to represent it in reality do change. No one knows what this perfect ideal chair actually would look like although there is Platos idea that we saw this ideal before we were born and when we "learn" about it, we are really just remembering what we already saw pre-birth...
Yes, perfection is ultimately unreachable in this reality but you are right, we should actively strive for it in spite of this. Otherwise, what's the alternative? We just choose to be victims of entropy and chaos?
Too much Perfection will create people begging for chaos just to see something unpredictable happen but to much chaos will destroy everything.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:06:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree with you perfectly.
martixy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:21:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Modern machine learning gives us an interesting new perspective here. Also, answers the question in a pretty good way.
farm_ecology ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:18:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue this is a failing of dictionaries, not language. The problem lies in that our definitions are far more complicated than standard definitions go into.
In the example of a chair there is a whole series of qualities a chair must have for it to be a chair, but these are rarely explained in s dictionary but happen subconsciously in our heads
etch_a_sketch ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:12:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is a similar theory we went over in an English class that deals with the concept that everything is relevant simply because we assign it relevancy. A table is only a table because we call it one. The moment we assign it a new name, it ceases to be a table.
seancurry1 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:29:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ah, the engineer's approach to philosophy
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:15:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait, who's saying a rock can't be a chair? Anything can be a chair if you're brave enough.
soomuchcoffee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:17:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Famous philosopher Testicles fought his entire life so that these two items would never be conflated again!
pahein-kae ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:23:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would say a chair is a chair because it is more chair-like than everything else. It's hard to define what counts as a "chair", but everyone has an idea of what a chair should be.
In my head, the most stereotypical chair is 1.) something made by humans for sitting on, 2.) usually constructed of sturdy materials to facilitate sitting on it and general reuse, 3.) designed to fit a singular humanoid sitting, 4.) has a backing for support and/or comfort, and therefore generally has a "L" or reverse L shape somewhere in the silhouette.
It doesn't need legs or padding, though it can have those. A chair only useable once would be a really inconvenient chair, so much so that I would suspect it to be something made for an art gallery or performance art. It can be small or large, but it looks like it can fit a humanoid sitting. If it doesn't have a back then it is a Stool and if you sell it to me as a chair I will be mad at you. Something designed in fantasy for chairs for other forms of creature-- well, in my experience, they often look more like lounges. And I'd rather call them that than a "dragon chair" or what have you.
I'm sure you could find holes in my argument, just like a "featherless biped" describes a plucked chicken as much as it does humans. But that isn't the point. The way we construct ideas and concepts operates on a thematic proximity, so far as I've seen research and theories tell-- so therefore our definitions must be proximity-based as well if we ever really want to reach a satisfying end to that rabbit hole.
Now that I'm reading the other comments, it looks like other smart people have already described this. Oh well. I spent time on this, haha.
soomuchcoffee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:29:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I commend your effort!
AprilSRL ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:39:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A chair is something designated for sitting.
I think almost everything has a satisfactory definition, but not everyone knows what it is.
EighthScofflaw ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:19:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This definition is not satisfactory for everybody. If you take the same object that we call a chair and put it in a world without any people, is it suddenly not a chair? Most people think of its 'chairness' as a property belonging to the object itself, rather than a property of our attitude toward the object.
AprilSRL ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:16:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Perhaps the definition I gave is imperfect. In fact, not everyone will perfectly agree on what qualifies as a chair. But you can still make a definition that includes everything which is inarguably a chair.
EighthScofflaw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:04:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The point of the philosophical exercise is to come up with a definition, not state the existence of a definition.
AprilSRL ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:57:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fair enough.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:27:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its actually simple. It isn't a chair. We just decided it was a chair. Collectively and individually. You could make something that looks very much like a chair, but is actually a table, with a back board.
What it actually is is just wood or metal or whatever. Our minds perceive it as a chair. If an alien saw it, then it probably would just think it was a strange sculpture of wood or something.
The chair part isn't real. Its abstract. It exist only in the mind. For all intents and purposes however, to us humans, it's a chair.
Mrferg101 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:59:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dropped in Intro to Philosophy course in college because of this statement from my teacher. Maybe you can help me understand what the hell she was talking about 30+ years later: "A tree is real. But the idea of the tree is more real than the tree itself for the tree can be destroyed, but the idea of the tree can never be destroyed." I went straight to drop/add and picked up a PE class instead.
soomuchcoffee ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:06:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's from Plato. It's called the allegory of the cave. Basically, if you were attempting to quantify a hierarchy of all the things, ideas are at the top. Use the trees. I tell my son about trees, but then in his lifetime all the trees die. He can still communicate the idea of trees down to his son, who will never actually encounter one. So in that sense the idea is "more real" than the thing it represents. I'm not sure "more real" is a great way to put it, but yeah, that's the general idea.
Also...your college had PE!?
Mrferg101 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:36:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yup...PE, thank God. Colleges don't require a PE anymore?
Thanks for the explanation. It blew college-me's brain at the time.
soomuchcoffee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:38:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think it was even an option when I was there in the 2004, much less a requirement. I had to take a large amount of whack job "general ed" type courses (I got credits for a course about over the counter medicines lol), but never a gym class.
Kahzgul ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:49:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Of course, Plato was wrong. Ideas can be lost if they are not shared, distorted if they are not understood, and simply forgotten if not kept fresh in the mind. Ideas cannot be destroyed in the same way as objects, but they are no more permanent.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:11:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"So what did you learn in school today, Johnny?"
"Well, uhh, that thing there that yer sittin' on, um... it's a chair."
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:35:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A chair is defined as a raised horizontal surface that was constructed by a human with the sole intent of being sit on by itself or another human. Chairs are characterized by having a horizontal surface that is commonly cushioned or conforms to the human body to maximize human comfort. This surface has four vertical supports that elevate the sitting surface off the ground at a comfortable height to both sit in and stand from for the average sized fully grown human of a particular region, but this number of supports can vary, as well as the size for its intended demographic. Another major characteristic of a chair is a vertical surface nearly connected nearly perpendicular to the horizontal sitting surface for the human to recline on if so chosen. Anything can be defined if you try hard enough, I donโt like this philosophical idea.
trondonopoles ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:34:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So if I take a chair and tilt it 45 degrees, it's not a chair anymore?
MechKeyboardScrub ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:47:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I had a friend go on a 10 minute rant about how water isn't wet because wet is a sensation, not a state. At the end of it my other friend turned to him, looked him dead in the eyes, and said "water is wet you fucking dumbass." One of the funniest things I've seen, but it goes to show that "oh yeah I can get real meta" is no fun
MagMaggaM ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:55:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"What's this?"
"It's a chair, ya dingus."
"Why?"
"Cuz we say it is."
"But what defines it as a chair?"
"Us saying it's a chair. Really, everything can just be defined as 'the universe', we just like to give things names. You could have two identical teddy bears, but one child would name theirs Ted, while the other names it Larry, the former child may see it as a simple teddy, whilst the latter sees theirs as a genuine living creature, the only difference is how we choose to define them."
"But what is the universe?"
"... Fuck off mate."
Colley619 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:33:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs because language be like it do.
A โchairโ is just a word that we came up with to describe it right? So what about other words for things to sit on? We have a โstoolโ for example. What about a rock that was carved into a chair? Then itโs both a chair and a rock. What if it was made to be both a chair or a small table?
My point is it doesnโt matter what we call it because the words for them just describe it using what we know about the objects. You canโt really poke holes in it if it could be multiple things just depending on any one persons description of it. Not to mention how much languages changes to mean new things and adapt to โmodernโ objects.
redeyesredbull ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:34:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The cave one is about how you canโt explain your perspective to anyone else because theyโre living theirโs.
HenryLimb69 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:49:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is kind of interesting, because the ability to use abstract reasoning to classify an object is basically what makes us different from machines. There is no exact criteria to differentiate a chair from other furniture (a weird table for instance) but humans, even young children, can do it immediately
ccdfa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:49:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you like this concept you should read Simone Weil's essay on Human Personality. She was a Platonist and describes this problem rather well. If you don't want to read the whole thing just look for the prison of language somewhere in there.
Tenwaystospoildinner ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:10:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A rock is a chair as long as you're sitting on it. A chair can be a weapon as long as you're in the WWE.
Tothler ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:23:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have a wanky way of thinking about this:
Any thing (I use thing to mean either a tangible object, action, or concept) has a "true name": itself. The only exactly precise name a thing can have is itself. Any other name, be it sounds or shapes, is an imperfect representation, because it lacks some data about the actual thing -- and there is no point creating a secondary name which encompasses every possible aspect of a thing, because it would by necessity contain at least as much data as the thing itself. Secondary names are the shorthand we use to make language possible.
Any thing we have not given a secondary name can be identified only by its true name. For example: in mathematics there is an uncountable infinity of functions that are not named, except by their definition.
And when you try to communicate with someone you don't share a language with, you resort using to the "true name."
That is some wank, lemme tell ya.
majesticshit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:21:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This one is getting me. Lol I've never had so much fun and been so stressed out at the same time.
CommandoDude ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:27:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The answer is "Because society has decided it's a chair"
The word "chair" is meaningless. What is conveyed is an object that exhibits certain physical characteristics, has certain social context, and exists as a reference between wide ranges of individuals.
The word "chair" is merely a system of signs that conveys an intangible meaning, packed with social context, which other people must decode.
batsofburden ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:02:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a chair because it was designed to be a chair.
monsto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:31:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the perfect answer to the perfessers question would have been "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".
Sometimes things just are what they are. Questioning, philosophizing and pontificating over the name of a chair is a waste of spirit.
Besides. . . it's a problem of language, not of philosophy.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:29:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But a rock doesn't have four legs and a back while ALSO being something to sit on.
BringBackManaPots ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:00:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How come you can't argue that it fits the definition of a chair? Any object could go under multiple names if it satisfies multiple definitions.
For example: *points to car* -- This is a car, because it fulfills every constraint for being labeled a car. It's also a vehicle, because it fulfills every constraint of being labeled a vehicle.
wontdrinkfkingmerlot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:04:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I took a Linguistics/Semantics course in college and on one of the first days we got into groups with the task to define simple words. Our word was "on." And after 30 minutes and much debate, us four college-educated adults could not come up with a satisfactory definition of "on." A very humbling experience.
Echoesong ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:41:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're on the track, but that's not quite it. Heidegger argues that we understand things because we, as Dasein, are in-the-world necessarily. In order to be in the world, we understand it. He talks later in Being and Time about the fore-structure of understanding, which basically states that in order to understand anything there are things we have to know a priori.
Further, we primarily understand things in how we concern ourselves with them and how they connect with other objects in a totality of relations (kind of like how you explained in your OP).
dragonthemagicpuff ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:43:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the point of that thought exercise is to realize that humans are able to very efficiently hold on to ambiguous concepts and use them in place of static definitions when those would otherwise fail.
murrayvonmises ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:28:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Shouldn't the criteria for a definition be the relation of the object to the human experience? So we can say that a chair it a four-legged platform with a backrest designed as a place to sit? Anything else seems like mental masturbation, or conceptualizing beyond necessity.
EighthScofflaw ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:17:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This might be the right answer, but it has it's own implications to deal with. For one thing, if the same object existed in a world without any people, it would suddenly not be a chair anymore. In general people think of its 'chairness' as a property belonging to the object itself, rather than a property of our attitude toward the object.
murrayvonmises ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:20:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Chairness" is a grouping of certain attributes, and the grouping itself is done by humans. If everyone died, there would be nobody to conceptualize it as a chair, but it would still be a chair, i.e. it would preserve the attributes by which we identify it.
EighthScofflaw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:29:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This contradicts what you said above.
If the object is not standing in relation to any humans, it cannot be defined by its relation to humans.
If the object is defined by certain properties that are merely stipulated by humans, then we run into other problems.
murrayvonmises ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:37:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We can still say it was made and was used by humans as a piece of furniture to facilitate sitting, if everybody died some time after. Then it is still a chair. On the other hand, in a universe where humans had never even existed, it would indeed be meaningless to define a chair as a chair, not to mention that it could never be created in the first place.
Idk what you mean by properties being stipulated. The properties are observed and grouped based on observation of similarities and differences from other objects. So, the definition of a chair is not subjective, but it is in relation to human beings.
soomuchcoffee ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:31:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Welcome to philosophy!
Athrowawayinmay ยท 335 points ยท Posted at 15:01:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The concept of Qualia; the actual experience of color/sound/taste/sensations/etc.
It is often demonstrated via a thought problem: Imagine a woman named Mary has lived in a black-and-white room with a black-and-white TV to interact with the world outside her entire life. Everything is black and white from food to clothes, etc. She learns everything there is to learn about the color red: wavelength, qualities, etc. She is then shown a red apple; For the first time ever actually she has seen the color red. Has she gained some new knowledge about the quality of "red" by seeing it and experiencing it? If you say yes, that she as experienced some new quality of "red" that she did not have before, that is qualia.
Another simple thought problem for this would be to imagine someone who has been blind or color blind their entire life, who, following surgery, gains proper vision. Have they gained some new form of knowledge about the world by experiencing sight/colored sight? If yes, that thing experienced is qualia.
mme13 ยท 129 points ยท Posted at 18:03:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is there an argument that you haven't gained a new form of knowledge in either of those cases?
Athrowawayinmay ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 18:35:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. The long and short of arguments against qualia are that they are effectively "gap" arguments. WE don't know how the brain gives rise to qualia, therefore there may be some other thing causing it. There's no reason to believe it isn't still just a physical phenomena.
A good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#Critics_of_qualia
Some more specific/lengthy objections:
http://cogprints.org/254/1/quinqual.htm
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/
thatnameagain ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 21:14:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This seems like it would only be feasible if you had an infinitely powerful brain capable of extrapolating and retaining everything from all the information given about "red".
konsf_ksd ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:03:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is learning the existing qualia, itself qualia? Because of so, I'm in favor of the gap explanations.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:27:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As an artist, this is super interesting and useful, thanks
redak205 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:25:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes - it's a very well known, very debated thought experiment by Frank Jackson. The short answer ELI5 is that (among other suggestions) people have posited things along the lines of saying that rather than gaining new knowledge per se, you actually gain a new ability. Another possible response is that you did learn something new, but the subject of that knowledge is old. Or in other words, you've just learnt a new way of presenting some old knowledge, so you don't need to say that something exists above and beyond that to explain the new knowledge, namely, the qualia.
Super interesting argument that can really get you down the rabbit hole. Have a look here if you want a better idea of the proper responses, as they're much much more nuanced than I've laid out and there are a bunch of different versions:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/#4.5
(Also, I'm really happy that my philosophy undergrad is actually coming in useful)
The_Running_Free ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:03:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it? Isnt ot just like learning to drive? You can read all the books about driving but once you get behind the wheel you are gaining new experience. Right? Or have i missed the point entirely?
Kahzgul ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:38:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
you seem to be talking about the difference between knowing the path and walking the path. The experience of something is absolutely different from the experience of being told about something.
martixy ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:09:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not a thought experiment.
There was a recent TIL or something, about people without sight being given sight and not being able to recognize shapes they were intimately familiar with by touch.
This new perception is the pattern of brain connections that results in the perception of red as a colour, in her visual cortex. This would be different from how knowledge of the wavelength and other similar abstract facts are stored. She has now gained a new unique representation of the colour red her brain can call upon. That would be Qualia in this case.
avatarwanshitong ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:23:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's one of my favorite thought experiments, so glad someone mentioned it. It's fascinating to think about the separation between the actual nature of our experiences - the qualia - and the neurological properties of our brains. I believe that consciousness is a direct consequence of the various properties/structure of our brains, but I also don't believe that the qualia of our experiences can be boiled down to those physical properties - even if they are causally linked. Real mind-bender.
Azuaron ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:38:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If this is from birth, there's actually the strong probability that Mary's visual cortex never developed the ability to see colors, so she sees the apple in grayscale. We know this from very strange experiments with kittens.
vensmith93 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:09:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The book "The Giver" put this into perspective for me except they were never taught about the colors they are surrounded by, so to most people there is no discernible difference between red and blue
gaslightlinux ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:03:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We discovered that blind people given sight will not be able to make the connection between the way something felt and the way something looks.
You could give them a circle, 5 pointed star, and square to feel. They could be intimately equated with their feel. Once they gain sight they would not be able to know which is which just from sight.
strikethreeistaken ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:09:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am going to say "no". The only thing different is her experience of the color red. There is no new information given to Mary but she has a new way of experiencing it.
thegreatpablo ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:30:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But now she is armed with the knowledge of what red looks like and can identify it without being told that what she is looking at is red. This is helpful when looking at things that are improperly colored (a lemon that has been painted red for instance when she has been told that lemons are yellow) and upon seeing entirely new things.
strikethreeistaken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:01:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok. I was just pointing out that she has no new information. It was herself that changed, not anything else.
spacemanspiff30 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:01:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wouldn't Mary's skin be other than white or black?
LockmanCapulet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:27:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Would it be correct to say that Qualia is the knowledge of experiencing a phenomena?
meatpopsicle548 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:53:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think that its confusing a few kinds of knowledge. You can be taught about gyroscopic forces and told about the process of pedaling, but does that make you know how to ride a bike? Your second paragraph actually has a question that was answered: if a blind person can now see, can they recognize a cube/sphere/pyramid if they knew how the shape felt? and the answer is no. And to me that would make sense. It'd be like if you've never had jello and just seen pictures and had it described. You might get a decent idea of it descriptively but the knowledge is different. It's not that jello has a jello-ness quality to it, its that the descriptive quality doesn't capture the whole picture, its an inadequacy of the communication, not an inability to transfer that information. A computer-neural link could potentially capture all of that fine grain information so that you can feel a recorded sensation but there isn't any feasible way to describe an experience fully, its all just shades of approximation. We feel more than we can describe with our current tools, that doesn't mean that there are qualities that can't be described.
CodeMonkey24 ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 17:19:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
After watching Altered Carbon, I started thinking about the idea that our consciousness doesn't persist. That even if an exact copy of a person's mind were made, and could be 'uploaded' into a replacement body, that would still be a new individual. The consciousness wouldn't continue streaming from the original host, should said host die. The new individual would believe they are the original, and for all intents and purposes, they would be, but the actual original person would not exist anymore. They touch on this at one point during the series when there are two copies of one character, and they're discussing "which memories to keep", to which one of them comments about it being an interesting way to describe who's going to die.
nevynn ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 18:12:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Now apply this concept to the Star Trek universe's beaming technology. Pretty much every being in that universe is only a few days old at most...
CodeMonkey24 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:14:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly.
It reminds me of an old TVO cartoon where this scientist is showing off his 'teleportation' machine. But it turns out that it's actually just a matter duplicator that destroys the original. I can't find it online at the moment, but for a kids short cartoon clip it was remarkably gruesome.
xcelleration ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 07:11:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And that's why I wouldn't dare use a teleportation device if it existed, say if how they teleport is disintegrating you and rebuilding you. Even though it would be the coolest power to have.
Aperture_T ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:09:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Let's use wormhole instead. Deal?
Just_an_AMA_noob ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:23:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Someone made a quantum mechanical proof that basically states that itโs impossible to create an exact copy of someone. Not that we will never develop the technology to do it, but that such a copy existing would violate the laws of the universe. What this means for philosophy is that the person who is a copy of you is genuinely a different person. They just look almost exactly like you and with your same memories.
At the same time though, apparently itโs theoretically possible to perform a form of teleportation that swaps you with the components of matter required to create a copy of you. The stream of of consciousness shouldnโt get interrupted because itโs actual teleportation. Of course only science will tell if such a thing will ever be accessible by humans.
CodeMonkey24 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:30:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The hard part would be determining if the stream of consciousness was uninterrupted or not. Because to an outside observer, the teleported person is unchanged. But you don't know if the original consciousness stopped and a new one was created, or if the old one survived. Even the person being teleported might not know. The only one who would know would be the potentially dead individual who was disassembled in the first place.
obscureferences ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:21:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty sure that if you knew the procedure and woke in an android body you'd be aware that you were the copy.
Aperture_T ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:10:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Depends on how realistic the android body is. It might take quite a while to figure it out.
Although, if they're putting me in an android body and I can't tell the difference, that's a wasted opportunity in my book.
wordsworths_bitch ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:28:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
gotta get that double sleeve. seriously, check out sync. it's a great movie and it highlights that premise: https://youtu.be/vhjimhX9d5U
Traygar2899 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:09:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is this game called SOMA that gets pretty deep into this sort of subject.
Uncle_Charnia ยท 341 points ยท Posted at 13:17:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Zeno's Paradox; that the separateness of things is probably an illusion.
Geoff2f ยท 184 points ยท Posted at 14:48:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Be careful what you say about Zeno he might erase the universe on a whim.
metagloria ยท 65 points ยท Posted at 18:15:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fortunately for us, he's not going to do so for 2 seconds.
prosthetic4head ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:12:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But it's already been 1 second! We're doomed!
SammySpartan ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:40:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not unless we all lend Goku our energy!
\o/
brutalbronco ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:24:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fucking lia
[deleted] ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 17:56:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wouldn't worry too much. The Earth has Goku.
Casperious ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:19:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I immediately thought the same thing when I saw Zeno
BanMeBabyOneMoreTime ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:23:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, he's more likely to stuff us in volcanoes and drop hydrogen bombs on us.
sharrrp ยท 263 points ยท Posted at 18:48:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Zeno's paradox isn't a paradox at all. Not really anyway. His most famous one being about dividing the space between two things in half, then dividing one of those halves in half and so on to infinity. So how is it possible for anything to ever move from point A to point B in a finite amount of time if it has to cross an infinite number of spaces?
There are a few ways to resolve this but a good starting point would be to point out that a sum of an infinite number of units does not necessarily add up to an infinite amount of stuff. Even if all those units are all positive. Start with the number 1. Divide by 2 and add the result to itself, but leave it as an expression so 1 + .5. Repeat. 1 + .5 + .25 + .125 + .0625 + ......
You can do that for infinity and you don't get infinity. In fact you never even get 2. An infinite series doesn't always produce an infinte result which is an assumotion underlying Zeno's paradox. So it's not a paradox at all, it's just counter-intuitive.
come_with_raz ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 22:29:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure this really gets to the heart of the problem though. Regardless of the infinite series having a limit, it is still merely approaching the limit and never crossing it. The issue seems to be not so much about the sum of the series, but the fact that the series itself contains an infinite number of distances that need crossing.
iotto24 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:42:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://youtu.be/EfqVnj-sgcc
Here's a cool video on the topic, it'll explain the matter better than I can.
thereddaikon ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:25:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or an easier one, there is a limit to how far you can divide something. In terms of distance it's plank length. Granted figuring that one out probably took a lot longer than the mathematical version.
eagleman1917 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:43:39 on April 15, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Planck length is not by any meaningful definition a "minimum length", and purporting as much requires violation of Lorentz symmetry.
kogasapls ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:47:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
At no point in the definition of an infinite series must you actually do anything infinite times, or suppose that this is possible.
robots914 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:09:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, vsauce made a video on this. Cut a cake in half, cut one of the halves in half,and put it on top of the first half. Cut the remaining piece in half, place one of the halves on top of the cake. Repeat forever, and you've got a cake with finite mass and volume but infinite surface area.
pth_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:26:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's been resolved by Banach-Tarski paradox
PersonUsingAComputer ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:09:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I assume this is sarcasm? It's hard to tell on Reddit sometimes.
Sage2050 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:30:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The concept of different sizes of infinity
cmitch3087 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:38:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Supertasking
Kuhnmeisterk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:44:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the question it should pose is not how can you cross infinite distance, which implies a divergent sum, but at what point can you find the smallest boundary between where you are and where you are not and how does that smallest individual piece begin the movement.
Batman_wears_Crocs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:32:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An asymptote, I believe
BaneOfXistence4 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:34:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's known as the Dichotomy right? I been binge watching Vsauce recently and it was one of the focal points in his Supertasks video.
CallMeAladdin ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:56:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
1+2+3+...= -1/12
hearse83 ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 22:33:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I liken this to the a priori argument that God doesn't exist because in order for God to exist:
1) God is all good
2) God is all knowing and all powerful
BUT THERE IS EVIL IN THE WORLD
Well that violated rule #1 so God must not exist.
You're ascribing a condition that you yourself made up.
You failed to consider that
1) God might be an asshole
2) God might not be all powerful or all knowing
3) Your idea of good and evil or bad and good is subjective
Edit: some very intensely passionate people were upset I changed the argument for arguments sake. I have however seen first or second year philosophy students use this as an example of a failure of a priori arguments where there was some sort of fallacy or improperly ascribed element.
woodlark14 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 23:30:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's a complete misinterpretation of the argument. The argument is meant to disprove the existence of all good, all knowing and all powerful being not to disprove the existence of an entity named "God". It's only used like that because people claim that there is an entity named "God" who has those qualities. You cannot disprove the existence of an entity named "God" but that does not mean anything because you can name anything "God".
hearse83 ยท -12 points ยท Posted at 00:39:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I just imagine you so angry and outraged when you wrote this. You're right: it is a misinterpretation of incompatible properties arguments relating to God. But don't tell me you've never heard anyone use it in that fashion.
eenuttings ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:59:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Man, nothing helps you win an internet argument like calling someone else "angry and outraged" huh
hearse83 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:56:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I actually wasn't arguing with the person, their knowledge of the basics of the argument is correct. My comparison was about people who use formatting of arguments wrong because that's what we were discussing. That was the point that was missed.
FadeCrimson ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 21:57:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, Zeno's theories, while interesting, fall apart when you bring the concept of Planck Length into the mix.
Kuhnmeisterk ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:39:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Eh not really. Planck length doesnt mean this is the smallest possible distance. Its just the smallest distance at which our science makes any sense. Scientists arent saying "alright guys, thats as small as it gets" theyre saying that's as small as it gets before they can make sense of anything happening.
UlrichZauber ยท 153 points ยท Posted at 18:19:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Zeno lived way before calculus was invented, and did not know that an infinite series could have a finite result. This is the basis of several of his paradoxes.
electrogeek8086 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:19:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It doesn't matter because even if an infinite series has a finite value, it still takes an infinite number of steps to get to the result.
UlrichZauber ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 21:56:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This doesn't matter if each step takes zero time.
ETA: I should say, if the time taken per step approaches zero as the step count approaches infinity. You still get a finite result for total time taken.
kogasapls ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 02:56:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This comment is a little out of whack.
1) Limits don't approach anything.
2) A series of values which tend to 0 need not converge.
Edit: Since the parent comment was edited, only 2) applies. The summand going to 0 is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the convergence of a series of real numbers; as an example, the sum of 1/n diverges although 1/n -> 0.
electrogeek8086 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:01:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see you have never done any calculus.
kogasapls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:22:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have a degree in math. I have taught the basic principles of calculus to hundreds of students. I am very careful to instill the correct notion that limits do not "approach" anything.
The limit L as n approaches infinity of a sequence of real numbers (a_n) where n ranges from 1 to infinity is a real number such that, for any e > 0, there exists a natural number N so that n > N implies |a_n - L| < e. An infinite series is the limit of a sequence of partial sums, which are real numbers.
The harmonic series, sum n from 1 to infinity of 1/n, diverges (the proof is slightly too long for this comment) despite the limit as n goes to infinity of 1/n being 0, since for a particular e, whenever n > 1/e, we have |1/n - 0| < e.
Please tell me where I was wrong, o reddit mathematician. I know there must be many errors.
electrogeek8086 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:02:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
LOL get off your high horses. You are right in the sense of Weierstrass delta-epsilon limit.
kogasapls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:04:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Please give me a single standard definition of a limit of sequences of real numbers where the limit is not a real number, and is in fact a variable quantity which can be said to "approach" something. You're being incredibly condescending for someone who is completely uneducated in the topic.
electrogeek8086 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:19:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
geez, I said you were right, now calm down.
kogasapls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:21:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You qualified that with "in the sense of Weierstrass delta-epsilon limit" as if to suggest I was only right under some odd assumptions about the original problem. I'm obviously correct, which makes me wonder why you said "you obviously haven't done any calculus" in response to my original comment. I'm very calm; as you can tell, learning from the great mathematicians of AskReddit is my hobby.
electrogeek8086 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:06:04 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know what you mean about limits not approaching anything, but your second point was just wrong, I guess that's why you edited your comment.
kogasapls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:10:22 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, my second point is absolutely correct. The sum of a sequence which converges to 0 need not converge at all, and an example is given by the harmonic series. I didn't change the way my original comment was phrased in any way, I only added the part denoted by "Edit:" to give an explicit example of a divergent series whose summand tends to 0. I edited my comment because the parent comment was edited to fix the issue I mentioned in the first point.
electrogeek8086 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:28:44 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok maybe I just misunderstood the "need not converge" part, because yeah individual terms approaching zero is absolutely not sufficient for convergence.
kogasapls ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:55:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Stop thinking of a series as a process. A convergent series is a number with the property that the finite sums can be made arbitrarily close to that number by taking a large enough, finite, number of terms.
Yossi25 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:17:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can you ELI5 this to me?
UlrichZauber ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:53:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's been a very long time since I took calc, so I'll have to answer that I can't. But how's this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/2_%2B_1/4_%2B_1/8_%2B_1/16_%2B_โฏ
I'm not sure how understandable that is without at least some math background, but I think they kept it tight. Zeno is even mentioned there, noice.
kogasapls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:51:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By taking a large (but finite) number of terms, we can arrive at a sum as close as we want to some value. This is the meaning of an infinite series converging. For example, we need 3 terms of the sum of (1/2)n to get within a distance of 0.25 from the value 2 (1 + 1/2 + 1/4 = 1.75 = 2 - 0.25) and 4 terms to get within a distance of 0.125, etc.
LockmanCapulet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:30:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ohhh, so THAT'S the mathematical solution to that!! I knew there was one but never knew exactly what it was. Thank you Newton, Leibniz, and UlrichZauber!
gaslightlinux ยท 92 points ยท Posted at 18:58:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Zeno's Paradox just explains that Zeno didn't understand advanced math.
KillerPacifist1 ยท 98 points ยท Posted at 19:20:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By no fault of his own though, it just hadn't been invented yet.
gaslightlinux ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 19:28:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, I'm just saying it's not as mind blowing these days.
iagox86 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:23:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Invented, or discovered?
KillerPacifist1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:39:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I believe math is invented, not discovered.
ZeePirate ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:57:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well he coulda invented it then
GeorgiaHamilton ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:33:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's interesting that you say it's no fault of his own. If someone has come up with a solution to his paradox, then why couldn't he?
Sarlot_the_Great ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 05:33:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because it was not one person who came up with the solution to his paradox, it was generations of mathematicians progressing the fields related to the subject until inevitably we reached the point where one was able to make the final leap. Zeno even imagining an infinite sum is incredible, the concept that something could occur an uncountable number of steps and simply continue occurring indefinitely is very bizarre and unique for reality rooted mathematicians of old. Itโs unreasonable to expect Zeno to be able to do it, when mathematics was hardly cemented yet, let alone logic to allow him to reason to the conclusion, especially because some Infinite sums are still counter intuitive today even after 2000+ years of progress.
GeorgiaHamilton ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:35:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Okay, got it.
Iamnotarobotchicken ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:16:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Most of his paradoxes have been resolved.
cutelilmoth ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:33:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yup. Iโve been training my eyes to do this actually because it helps with observational drawing.. but itโs still a little unnerving sometimes
-Paradox-11 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:56:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
More of a logical paradox about the inaccuracy our language rather than actual application. Still fascinating, but wrong context here.
Uncle_Charnia ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:48:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's precisely what blows my mind about it.
TheSoloBros ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:09:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Zenos paradox+hedonism. Just be nice.
MintyTruffle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:03:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You mean, like, there's a hidden layer? That above all this, all dualities and everything all connect into one thing?
I believe that 100%
SconnieNews ยท 231 points ยท Posted at 14:13:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
An old comment I made on a similar thread:
I (we?) live inside a computer simulation of a more advanced civilization. The problem isn't so much that it can't be proven, it's that it is something that is getting closer and closer to proving itself. Link for those interested in going down a wormhole
EDIT I'm going to try to add some meat around explaining this theory, but this could get longwindedโฆ ย
ย
Not that long ago we had no real computing power on our planet, in just a few short years our abilities as a species to process data has skyrocketed to where we are today. There is really no need to get into the gritty details about how fast our abilities are growing, as it is safe enough to say for this theory that they are growing at an increasingly rapid rate. ย
ย
At this point in time we have the ability to create simulations/models of global weather patterns, complex physics experiments, and much more. Now let's take a moment to think about what a society could do with the amount of computational power that we may end up with in 100 yearsโฆwhat about 1,000 yearsโฆ ย
ย
Given our past history and species-level narcissism, it is reasonable to think that one thing we would attempt to do would be to 'simulate' our own origins. Sure, this would be an absurdly complex model requiring massive amounts of processing power, but look how much has changed in the last 1,000 years. Is it really too far-fetched to think that we could get to this point in the distant future? ย
ย
If you are like me and agree that we may very well reach the point where we can run such simulations, then we get to the problem. Would we run just one simulation? Probably no. We would run many, we would tweak seemingly small variables to see how our world would be different with each changeโฆWell shit. If that is the caseโฆ..then there would be many more 'simulated' worlds than real ones, and the odds become ever slimmer that 'we' live in the real world. Sure there would be the one actual civilization that started running simulations in the first place, but again, odds are against us being that group. ย
ย
This argument also has a convenient way of filling in strange gaps in our knowledge. For example, quantum entanglement is the perplexing phenomenon where two particles can seem to transmit information between each other faster than the speed of light. We fairly certainly accept that this is not actually what is happening, but cannot yet explain how measurements done on one particle can seem to be transmitted to the other so quickly. One possible explanation is that there are 'hidden variables' that are more or less set from the moment the particles are created. Because we don't know what these variables are, we obviously don't know how they would be set, but when looking through the lens of the computer simulation theory we could explain this as a parameter that was set during the creation of the simulation (because keep in mind that the physics we see as true and universal need not apply to the 'real world') ย
ย
dsds548 ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 15:56:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Quantum entanglement is definitely a hard one to explain. Maybe it's something that we can't measure. Maybe our limit is our understanding of the speed of light as the only form of travel. Or our measurement systems can't measure past the speed of light.
Maybe the Quantum entanglement freezes time so the signal can get to the other particle? Or maybe it's a glitch in the matrix that we found, who knows.
SconnieNews ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:37:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Totally agree. Just an fyi if you are interested: u/andsens posted a link to a really fascinating video below that talks about some fairly recent developments (some experiments as recent as 2015) relating to entanglement and some of the oddities we can observe.
Ascimator ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:14:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought the core of it was simpler - that a particle splits in two and its halves, having opposite quantum parameters or something, go in two opposite directions. Then, by observing one half, you instantly know the parameters of the other half, that could actually be lightyears away at this point (therefore, gaining information faster than the speed of light). Correct me someone if I'm wrong.
bluesam3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:30:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Almost entirely correct, except that you can't actually transfer information in the sense of relativity faster than light via quantum entanglement.
OgdruJahad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:54:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or maybe its there to throw you off. To make the world more chaotic than it should be.
clutchheimer ยท 82 points ยท Posted at 17:24:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is one of those thought exercises that sounds a lot more plausible than it actually is. First of all, it assumes that we actually could simulate reality perfectly. Second, it assumes that when this is possible, that it is actually done. Third, it assumes that multiple simulations will exist. Finally, it assumes that each multiple is as likely as any to be true.
There are strong arguments against each hypothesis. While I would not argue that this is impossible, it does not seem as likely as it does when presented as you did.
The computing power required for such a simulation is not vast, or huge, it in fact approaches the infinite. But that isn't even the strongest argument against it. That would be the idea that if multiple simulations exist, then there would be many, and this reduces the likelihood that we are real rather than a simulation. This reasoning is actually false. Existence of more possibilities does not necessarily reduce the chance of the likely possibility.
For example: I could be...
A normal human.
Superman
Batman
Sub Mariner
Spider-Man
Flash Gordon
GI Joe
Quicksilver
Wow. Chances are I am a superhero! No, chances are I am a normal human.
SconnieNews ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 18:31:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hey thanks for responding! I liked reading through your different perspective. Obviously I don't think there are any right or wrong answers or thoughts here (the thread does have philosophical in the title after all), but I wanted to add in a bit more color to maybe counter some of your counter-points. Just meant to be fun discussion, so please don't take any of this as a personal attack.
I don't think it does. It really only assumes we could simulate entities that pass as conscious, and simulate a surrounding environment that they believes is reality. Imagine if the characters in The Sims had the same level of consciousness as us (meaning a human could not tell them apart from another human when interacting with them), but had no idea the outside world existed. The game they live in is not 'simulated perfectly' based on the world we live in, but that doesn't matter. They could still go about their lives abiding by the rules of that world and be none the wiser. I'm not trying to trivialize this though. At no point did I try to imply we could do this today, or even that we are close, but it's certainly not impossible, and we are moving closer to that ability with every leap forward in our technology.
True, but I would (and did) argue that is a very reasonable assumption.
I'm not sure I totally understand this one, but I'm going to assume this is relating to the analogy you made at the bottom of your comment with the superheros (sorry if you meant something else!). I don't think your analogy and what I was saying really line up that well. Instead can I suggest looking at diamonds. Originally, they were somewhat mysterious stones that were impossible for people to make. If you were an expert, or had access to the right tools, it was always possible to be 100% sure that the rock you had was made by the natural processes of earth. Fast forward to now. If you walk blindly into a pawn shop and grab an engagement ring with no documentation, it's decidedly more difficult, and in some cases impossible to tell if that is a rock formed naturally by the earth's functions, or by a scientist in a lab. The second you create the ability to replicate something convincingly enough that they are indistinguishable from the original, you add uncertainty within every single entity as to which is original and which is synthetic. In this case, we are talking about making 'synthetic' consciousness or 'synthetic' living beings. If we really do end up doing that convincingly enough we will have inherently cast massive doubt on weather we ourselves are the product of the same process.
what-a-qweirdo ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:25:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for reiterating with the diamond example, that clicked a lot better for me. :)
clutchheimer ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:45:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The first thing you wrote we just have to disagree on, I think. I see the point you are making, but I contend that any believable reality simulation is basically so resource intensive that it is functionally impossible.
You might argue that because it is all we ever knew, so therefore we have nothing to compare it to, but even that is weak given that we experience life so completely.
One other possible argument is that in each simulation, only one life must be simulated. In this scenario, basically ONLY YOU exists, the simulation is inherently for your benefit (at this perspective, of course). The universe outside is only created JIT as you move through it. This would be easier, but still so large that it is staggering.
This is an example of something that seems a lot more possible than it actually is. I would argue that FTL travel is more likely than believable reality simulation on this level.
The last part you have mostly hit on it, but you are not understanding your own argument at its core. For the simulation to be more likely than the reality, there needs to be some evidence that this is the case. The only evidence offered in support of that is a previous, unproven assumption (that if one simulation exists, others must) and the idea that if multiple simulations are existent, then the sheer number of those makes your likelihood of appearance in the only "prime" reality to be unlikely. The sensory realism of the world we are experience is strong argument against the existence of simulation, and that argument is not weakened at all no matter how many simulations are posited. Basically, a zillion simulations is no more likely than one, and even if a zillion simulations exist, that doesn't reduce the chance that you are in the prime reality.
SconnieNews ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 19:09:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, here is our main point of contention. I couldn't disagree with you more on this. My entire argument is based on the fact that simulated entities have achieved a level of (simulated) consciousness that we can't distinguish as being different from our own. Those entities would think and feel and sense things in their simulated world and be able to react and process them just as we do in ours. If that is the case, it is also certainly the case that every simulated universe decreases our chances of being in what you call the 'prime reality.' It's really not that different than if we imagined a super device that you could aim at a planet and immediately create a perfect copy of the planet and every living thing on it. As you start doing that more and more, the odds of any one individual being a member of the original planet continue to decline. From that specific individual's perspective, they could argue that since they saw the copy of their planet get made, they are in the 'prime planet', but what guarantee would they have that they had not been the result of a previous use of the same device?
clutchheimer ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:34:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I just realized I didn't point out why your argument is not convincing. You are looking at it like an external choice.
One of the main things that needs to be grasped is the concept of point of view. For you to be in a simulated reality, some assumptions must be true. For you to be part of a simulated reality farm, more assumptions must be true. This reduces the likelihood of the possibility.
The problem is that it seems less likely because you are thinking of if I am standing outside a room and looking in at a billion simulated realities and one real one, surely the chance of choosing the actual reality must be smaller. That is true, but it isn't what we are talking about. Whether or not you exist in a simulated reality is not an external choice. The fact that more assumptions must be true for it to be true reduces the likelihood of it being true.
SconnieNews ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:27:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, but more importantly the fact it's based on assumptions and not proven observable facts makes this a philosophical concept or theory rather than just a widely accepted fact of our universe...and that was kinda the topic of the thread in the first place :)
clutchheimer ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:54:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, its a worthy topic and lo and behold, we are discussing it! That doesn't mean we need to agree it is likely.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:19:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This just isn't true. I see the argument you made following, but it just doesn't hold any weight. For one thing, just like someone else wrote, nowhere does it say that there is only one reality. There could be just as many realities as there are simulated realities.
But the main point persists, and that is you have zero evidence that even one simulation exists, let alone some multiple of them. Your entire argument is based on flimsy speculation.
SconnieNews ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 21:20:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
...I never said I did. In fact the entire point of my post was instead to talk about things that would have to happen to put us in a position where we have to come to terms with the fact we may very well be in a simulation. Obviously this is just a theory, and like any theory for it to be proven true, the base assumptions I lay out in the original post would have to at some point be confirmed. Alternatively it's entirely possible that one or all of those assumptions are proven to be impossible (maybe there is some limit to computing power or something similar) and as a result this theory gets tossed aside like many other that came before it. The point though is that it's a rather wild theory that paints the world in a much different light than most people see it today, and in my opinion the assumptions that form the foundation for the theory are not too wild for me to see the possibility of it being true.
clutchheimer ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:57:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is why we have free will. The world works totally well even though you and I are on completely opposite sides of this debate.
HealthyBad ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:54:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We don't have to simulate reality perfectly to create a new sim-reality, in which the sim-reality beings only know and appreciate their world as "true"/"perfect" reality. Perhaps the reality that you and I know is really watered down and basic compared to the reality experienced by our computer creators
These are probably the easiest assumptions. Humans are endlessly curious and will most likely attempt a universe simulation as soon as it's feasible. The only reason a person would stop at 1 simulation is if that 1 simulation crashed catastrophically in a way that makes a 2nd simulation impossible or highly likely to be life-threatening
I mean, they're all "true" realities, but some exist created beneath others, likely in a very large tree with many branches. So the likelihood of any of them being true is 100%, but perhaps there exists a single "original" or "primary" reality. And how can we say so confidently that we are in the primary reality rather than an offshoot? We have nothing to compare our reality to.
This argument is trivial on the scale of universe time. We will easily have enough power to simulate at least a primitive universe given another 1000 years.
This is such a bad point it makes me think less of everything else you said. First of all, superheros aren't real (Using celebrities would make more sense). Second of all, there are billions of normal humans and very few "special" humans. Come on
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:19:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is completely irrelevant and shows that you don't understand the argument at all. For one thing, perfectly simulated (or even simulated to the point where sentient participants cannot discern it from actual reality) reality isn't real either. For another, that particular point was refuting the idea that the existence of more simulations reduces the possibility of being in the reality versus in a simulation. It does exactly that. Just because there are more possible places to go, does not mean that the chance of getting to the given spot is reduced appreciably. The fact that they are not real is actually the point of the argument. There is no superman, or other superhero, so no matter how many of them I tack on, the chance of me being a normal human is unaffected.
Your idea of how much computing power we will have in 1000 years is really naรฏve. As someone else pointed out, the minimum amount of space and data required to simulate an electron is an electron. The minimum amount of space and data to simulate a universe is...a universe. The data in the universe is functionally infinite.
Even if this uber civilization is only simulating subsets of the universe, the amount of space and power required is basically impossibly large.
One thing we know is more necessary preconditions reduces the likelihood of an event. So we could have: the reality we perceive is actual reality.
OR
There is a perceived reality that exists.
In this reality a civilization exists.
That civilization has the computational ability and resources to believably simulate the universe.
That civilization uses the resources to produce the simulation.
We are living in that simulation.
Which one is more likely? Believe what you want, but it seems pretty clear to me.
HealthyBad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:50:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We sort of have to take these two as givens, to avoid getting into an existential void
This is the 2nd most difficult condition, but a distant distant second. I would say, with regards to your points about necessary technology, that you could definitely just simulate a universe 0.001% of your own universe's size and with half the detail, and still learn a lot. To recreate your own universe as a 1-to-1 replica is impossible with what we currently know about physics, but that could change and with more economical scales, you can still simulate model universes with consciousness and reality
This one's a slam dunk, nearly 100% chance
This is easily the hardest part of the theory for me. So we suppose that there is one "original" reality in this universe, and anywhere from 0-infinite sim-realities branching off beneath the original. If there are 10,000 fake realities and 1 original reality, it seems obvious that we are in a fake one.
That seems to be they key point where I'm not seeing eye to eye with you. If there's 99 fake realities and 1 real reality, then there's a 99% chance I'm in a fake one. Why do you feel strongly that you're in the original reality?
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:22:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the point of contention, and it is because you are not understanding the point of view. It is not an external choice (which is how you are viewing it).
If an observer walked in and was picking a reality or sim in your case, they have a 99% chance to pick a sim. But that isn't what is happening.
The likelihood of reality versus simulation is based on the likelihood of the necessary preconditions. I don't agree with how easily you hand wave them away, but for now lets place that aside. Here is why no matter how many simulation universes exist, the probability of being in a sim can no more than double.
The probability of being in a universe where one simulation exists is P. The probability of being in a universe where multiple simulation universes exist is xP. The probability of either being true is therefore, P+xP.
It is possible for a universe to exist where a single simulation is made, but no others are. It is not possible to exist in a universe where multiple simulations exist, but one has not existed. Therefore the probability of multiple simulations is less than that of the single simulation. So x must therefore be less than one.
Consider the preconditions as stated before. It is possible to write the preconditions so that they are one or more simulations. However, since one is required for more than one, and as previously shown the P for one must be greater than the P for many, the total probability is P1=P+xP, where x is a value less than one.
However, what really matters is that the likelihood of being in just regular reality is much, much higher than P because the simulation universe requires many more preconditions, all of which exist in the other universe as well. So the P of the universe being only a single perceivable reality is yP, where y is a number greater than one.
In a best case scenario for the simulation universe there is a 66% chance of being in a simulation. That, however is extremely unlikely. Even the ones you call slam dunks are not. Just because the resources exist, does hot mean they will get used for a project. There are resources available for us to do many things that are never attempted.
What really matters is this, y is an unbounded, positive number, while x is never greater than 1. The chance of yP being greater than P+xP is very, very high.
SconnieNews ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:55:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok so based on the assumptions set forth in the the theory, we are assuming P=1 (again you can argue till you are blue in the face about some of the assumptions being impossible, but that's not the point of the argument)
This is still one of the assumptions needed for simulation theory though, so this is still 1
Again, we are just saying that this = 1 because the assumption is that we live in a society that will have the power to create a simulation in the future, and eventually will do just that multiple times.
No, probability can't be greater than one. (Again, if your argument was just 'I don't think one or more of the assumptions set forward in the original post is possible', it's the end of the argument and we agree to disagree). The problem starts when you then try to say:
This is just baseless and honestly makes no sense. We are starting with the premise that we live in a society that will achieve the technology to create powerful simulations of our universe (or sufficient subsections greater than or equal to what we are currently able to observe) , and that we will also take action to create those simulations. As soon as this is stated, your equation gets very simple. We can only live in one 'reality', so even if you believe there are multiple realities the equation looks like below where p(real)-> probability we live in a true reality, (r)->number of realities (most would assume r=1 unless they are counting parallel universes or something else), and (s)->number of simulated universes
p(real)= (r)/(r+s)
From here you can see the core of the theory. Up until we create the first massive simulation, when only things we can directly observe are counted p(real)=1/1, so no problem. As soon as that first one goes live p(real) drops to 1/2, and the second drops it further, and the cycle continues every time a new one is spun up. That's the core of the theory and why I say we are marching towards proving it true as we make more and more progress with our computing power. Any time youu increase s (number of simulated universes) you are always decreasing the probability you live in a 'true reality'.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:20:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, we are absolutely not assuming that. The actual formula is 1=yP+P+xP, but expressing the numbers of x and y is much more complex this way. The possibilities we are discussing are the likelihood of separate events, when we assume that these events are the only possibilities. The point is this, y is at least one order of magnitude greater than x, and most likely many, many orders of magnitude greater.
New simulations have no effect on the probability, because like I showed before, it has to do only with the necessary preconditions, not on the number of simulations. If your case were true, I could say it is more likely that we are living in a universe created by a lego master with the greatest set of legos, because he always has 1 more lego set than you have simulations.
That is nonsense. Adding extra number of things that are unlikely and without any evidence for their existence does not have any effect. The likelihood is based solely on the likelihood of the scenario, not the number of moving parts within the scenario.
gaslightlinux ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:07:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's possible that we are a simulation made by a less advanced species with a more advanced civilization.
Billy_Badass123 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:48:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just because it's what we're used to doesn't mean it's perfect.
ixtechau ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:34:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In this theory, "reality" is a simulation. The reality you know could be an extremely simple simulation compared to actual reality. We would never know.
If it becomes possible there is a 100% chance humans will attempt it.
If it's a simulation for any kind of scientific reason, bigger sample sizes are preferred. You would run a million simulations to see what results they share.
Well no, the theory is saying that if there are 999,999 simulations + 1 actual reality, you have a one in million chance of belonging to the actual reality.
It in no form approaches the infinite. You're making assumptions based on technology that allegedly exists inside a simulation.
Not sure you understand your own logic here. Humans could be super-beings compared to the ones who created the simulation. You wouldn't know, because you only know what you know. In actual reality the beings that created the simulation could have nine legs and two heads. Maybe the concept of legs and heads doesn't even exist outside the simulation.
You are for some reason assuming that a) humans created the simulation, and b) that everything in the simulation is an exact simulation of actual reality. Why?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:07:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:44:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The issue is you are assuming that each case is equally likely. They aren't. The existence of significantly more necessary preconditions for the simulated consciousnesses to even exist shows that. The real world explanation is orders of magnitude more likely (because of fewer requirements), so adding a bunch more things that have no evidence for their existence (and are significantly less likely) doesn't change the calculus any.
andsens ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:11:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By testing Bell's theorem you can actually disprove the hidden variables explanation of quantum physics (though not if it's a simulated universe, then I guess everything goes).
I would recommend watching a video by 3Blue1Brown and Minute Physics about exactly that, it's really good and demonstrates it in a very intuitive way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs
SconnieNews ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:33:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That was a fantastic video! I'll certainly have to drop the hidden variable example as that clearly shows it's been awhile since my math/physics days! (like you said though, that doesn't really disprove or even hold a ton of relevance for the simulation/non simulation argument as oddities like that could in theory be artifacts of the initial 'set up' of the physics for that simulation).
Thanks for sharing that!!
immmm_at_work ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:58:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You don't even need to create a simulated world/universe, right? You just need to create a simulated AI that perceives a universe. The AI wouldn't need to have a tree for it to touch, it would only require the sensation of a tree that it "touches" and "sees".
SconnieNews ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:22:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Great point! Just like you can have experiences that seem entirely real to you in a dream that have no physical presence in the 'real world'
RandomLink609 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:08:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Easy answer just don't think about it. Cause if you do and start to deviate from the " programming" the "programmers" must debug the system. Because when we deviate from the program we become the bugs thus killing us debugs the system.
TheKober ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:53:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Our owner bought a new DLC for us.
SconnieNews ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:23:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
lol! Kinda makes me excited for when the Civilization expansion comes out that makes the competing civs self aware of the fact they are in a game.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:10:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
SconnieNews ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:13:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I could certainly see that being the case. Lines up nicely with the comment by /u/OneAmp too. There would always be known ways for things to render, but they don't actually come into existence until they are needed.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:57:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
SconnieNews ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:08:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I actually really like that analogy. They would have no reason to question if they were real until they were shown the possibility of being in one of many different monitors
vergushik ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:59:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Noodle baked
We're definitely in a simulation. I'm converted. I might start a cult at this moment.
Thanks
maksen ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:19:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Back in the day we saw a future full of flying cars and hoverboards. Now we see a future full of simulations and lifelike A.I. Whats the point in flying cars you ask? Nothing. Thats why we invented cellphones instead. Whats the point in doing simulations? Who cares, lets invent a shimagadood. Shimagadood's will change the world in 10 years time. Its gonna be huge. We just don't know what it is yet!
I must say that all this talk about simulations and AI's taking over the world are getting a liiittle out of hand and a liittle Y2K. At this point people just jump on the bandwagon just to be at the edge of tomorrow. Scared of being out of the loop. I heard some seemingly intelligent guy on youtube say: "it could be that in 5 years we will have robots we can't differenciate from real human beings!". Put down the joint dude. Settle down now. We don't know where technology will take us and it will probably we wilder than we can ever imagine, but it will most likely not be what we imagine. It will be a Shimagadood.
As for simulatioms go. We can do cool simulations nowadays. I work with 3D simulations on a daily basis right now using houdini fx. Holy hell can you do some crazy shit inthere! Like.. With sand.. Falling.. And, water, like, water filling something up and stuff. And then there are microbes in the water and if i fast forward they mutate and animals start crawling out and before i know it, some of those animals has 2 legs and invents a shimagadood. Oh god, run for your lives.
FoxandFangs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:32:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The actual question for this idea is if we are in a simulation, does it matter? With the assumptions that there is a universe, we exist in it, and we can change it in mind.
Jkoni26 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:14:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the only conspiracy theory I've heard that I actually somewhat believe.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:24:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm okay with these theories because if they were true this is the shitiest simulation Iโve ever seen
OneAmp ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:38:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think about this often and I thought I'd throw this out there. There is some evidence to support that reality might be a simulation. Take the observer effect for example. The notion that light behaves differently when observed reminds me of the way video games render. You don't bother rendering it if the player can't see it. Not exactly the same, I know, but interesting to think about.
ayoitsurboi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:59:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is only applicable if you assume humans can get to that level of technology without killing ourselves. I would estimate that statistically it is very likely we all die before that.
SconnieNews ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:23:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sad, but certainly possible
QuickLava ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:17:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Something that I've always questioned about this theory is whether a simulated universe can/will/would be simulated within another simulated universe. The computational power needed to run just one by itself would be nuts, and I have to imagine that running a second one within that simulation would drastically increase that power requirement (my gut feeling is that the required power would increase exponentially, don't have time to think it all the way through though). Assuming that computational power will remain finite forever, I think you inevitably reach a point where running an additional nested simulation would require more computational power than is available, and what then? Do the people of that simulated universe plug in their new "existance box" and cause the nonsimulated computer in the real world to crash, instantly destroying every other simulation? Do they plug it in and find that it just doesn't work? Does the nonsimulated computer start lagging, causing time in all simulations to slow? I really can't make heads or tails of it, but it feels like a reasonable enough counter to me.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:17:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The only real problem I see is that the amount of computer power is gonna be restrained by how many bits you can manipulate in a given space. In theory quantum computers allow you to manipulate more bits then exist in the space being used if you ignore the physical space the supporting machinery takes up, but it's still a hard problem.
It might very well be possible that super advanced entities could create entire universes without breaking the laws of physics, but simulation, at least in the way we define it, is far fetched. Not only are you talking about virtualizing every atom of the universe, but at a speed where ultra high frequency waves can correctly interact with other ones.
I donno, I believe more in a grand architect then a simulator, but they are not all that different, just in the method and medium in which they exist.
Colley619 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:42:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Although technology has seemed to grow exponentially in the past century, there IS a limit to many things and we are reaching them. For example, computer components actually do have a physical limit to how small they can be on an atomic level. We cannot continue to go smaller and smaller indefinitely. Itโs very likely that we will soon hit a technological wall that we will not be able to pass for quite some time.
NSA_Chatbot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:39:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We're on a generation-colony ship and this part of the sim is explaining why the shit we decided to climb into a death box and leave our perfectly acceptable rock so our great-great-grandkids would eke out new life on a different rock.
I hope there's air.
IronMew ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:49:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The best argument I've thought of against this theory is that there don't seem to be any bugs. The universe has many things we don't yet fully understand, such as quantum theory as you say, but what we do understand works 100% reliably.
Where are the wall clips, the texture errors, the many and entertaining glitches that every simulation has - out of a need for efficiency when not out of explicitly shoddy programming?
I'll grant that a future civilisation would probably do things a lot better than we do, but total software reliability still seems difficult to believe.
And then, ultimately, even if what you say is true and we are all in an advanced version of the matrix... does it even matter, if none of us can ever tell the difference and become Neo?
f0k4ppl3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:05:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not a rendering. It's a simulation. A video game is an environment created based on a set of established environmental variables; this is how gravity works, this is how heat disipates, etc. Things already known and established, feed into the gaming engine as a set of rules that it must follow in order to produce a very specific required result; realistic water and lightning effects and so forth, for the purposes of entertainment by immersion. It is attempting to recreate exacting conditions, not generate new ones.
The simulation is attempting to create new conditions. A set of initial rules are given to the engine and then it's allowed to run it's course based on those rules. In the case of the universe we have the four fundamental forces; gravity, electromagnetism, strong atomic force and weak atomic force. These are created at once during the big bang and everything that has happened after that is the result of those four rules. This is well established by our current scientific body of knowledge.
The computer is creating conditions based on those very simple rules so there are no such things a glitches because what we are experiencing is unique to this universe. The simulation didn't set out to duplicate us or anything in our nature. We are the result of the the simulation.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:12:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If those things were common we wouldn't call them glitches, we'd call them physics.
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:09:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are you implying that this could actually be the case, or that it's just a cool thought experiment?
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 320 points ยท Posted at 13:25:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For me it's be the problem of free will. When you think about it, we are in control of nothing. Not to be drib and fatalistic. But I do believe the universe is deterministic. And as conscious beings aware of this problem there is nothing we can do about it but observe.
SpookyLlama ยท 102 points ยท Posted at 15:36:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whenever I find myself thinking about questions like this, I always ask myself, "Does it matter?"
Whether free will exists or not won't make a difference, as my life will only ever play out one way. Until there is some crazy breakthrough in quantum physics, then 'our' universe will only ever play out one way.
oddsbluestones ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 20:30:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It doesnโt matter. It just hurts my brain in the best way to think about it.
illuminates ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:27:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Found the anti-matter
Iced_Bacon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:38:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Check out Daniel Dennitt's compatibilism. He has some interesting ideas how we can both have free will and live in a deterministic universe.
Essentially (and I may screw this up a bit), he proposes that our ability to identify multiple paths forward and then act with the intent to go down that path is our free will. Therefore, those that have a better ability to think about the future have "more" free will than those that cannot. What really gets weird for me is he doesn't state that the actual decision of going down that path is free will - - that's still determined based off the cause and effect of electrical impulses in the brain, but just the leaning towards one way or another is freedom.
oddsbluestones ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:40:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That sounds to me like the rationalizations if a guy who is desperate to have and therefore explain free will, but knows in his gut that it actually doesnโt exist. But Iโll definitely check it out, I always love to learn new ideas. Thanks!
Iced_Bacon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:49:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Haha well you're not totally wrong. Most compatibilism certainly has that tinge of desperately trying to merge two opposite ideas, but his at least makes some sense.
Personally I don't buy into it, but I appreciate his effort.
obscureferences ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:04:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Upvoted your original post for presenting a coping mechanism where relevant even if you don't believe it.
Quaildorf ยท 127 points ยท Posted at 15:16:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe at large is very much non-deterministic. I thought everything was deterministic for a while, and it does seem reasonable until you get to small scales. Quantum events are fundamentally random, like radioactive decay and quantum tunneling. Since our world at large is a product of quantum interactions, I do not think the universe is deterministic.
What this means for free will is debatable and unsolvable, but I think it's very interesting.
for_the_Emperor ยท 67 points ยท Posted at 17:31:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My understanding is that quantum events are not fundamentally random, they are fundamentally undeterminable/immeasurable and therefore unpredictable. This does not mean random and indeterministic, just that we are limited in our perspective.
PetrRabbit ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:37:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks. I just posted a rant about free will vs. determinism, which will most likely get buried. But it seems super likely to me that as we discover these new scientific events that we don't understand, they're probably not random, we just don't have the knowledge to understand them yet. I mean, historically speaking, that's been the case for eons.
AmadeusMop ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:33:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
AmadeusMop ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:33:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
My understanding is that there is no way to formulate quantum events in any way that makes deterministic sense, even if we have unlimited perspective.
for_the_Emperor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:55:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for the link. It attributes indeterminism to the Uncertainty Principle though, which is what I thought, and I feel still supports my interpretation. Our measurement capabilities are limited by our perspective. If we can complete our understanding of physics I think we will realize that the quantum world is also predetermined. Of course weโre all just speculating without a more complete understanding of quantum mechanics.
AmadeusMop ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:53:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Uncertainty Principle is not about measurement capabilities. It is a fundamental characteristic of any wave-like system, wherein certain pairs of variables cannot both be precisely determined in any way, even by a hypothetical perfect observer.
for_the_Emperor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:45:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You mean like measuring both position and velocity of a particle at the same time? Because that seems to be directly related to measurable observation.
AmadeusMop ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:30:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Position and momentum, and yes.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle:
for_the_Emperor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:33:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see. I may have been combining the Uncertainty Principle with the Observer Effect.
Still I think reality is fundamentally deterministic and that we currently donโt fully understand quantum mechanics. Of course, related to the Uncertainty Principle we may possibly not be capable of knowing.
eagleman1917 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:56:35 on April 15, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Heisenberg himself conflated the observer principle with the uncertainty principle. Still, most quantum chemists or physicists subscribe to the "shut up and calculate" interpretation of QM.
AmadeusMop ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:43:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here, watch this video! It'll help.
SunshineBiology ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:36:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I one read a very nice explanation, that shines light on why it is fundamentally impossible to measure momentum and position at the same time.
Imagine you were sitting in your car. Now you drive too fast and get caught speeding by a camera. How can the camera measure your speed? Easy, it uses basic physics. It observes what distance you have travelled in which time, the definition of velocity. Now you can already see, the camera can only determine your velocity in a certain stretch of a location. With a car, thats no problem, we just take a very small stretch (compared to the car). A cars velocity does not change much over 1 cm of driving distance.
To know its location, you can now take a picture with the camera. Of course, with a picture you have an exact location but no idea about the velocity. You can already see that we cannot obtain the velocity and the location at the exact same time with the same method of measurement.
Not a problem with a car, but consider now: we make the object very, very, very small. Things cannot get infinitely small, so if we want to measure the velocity of the object, we have to take a stretch of its location thats relatively big compared to the object. This leaves us with a decision, do we want a large error in position or in velocity, which is basically Heisenbergs uncertainty principle.
Mindfullmatter ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:42:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Random vs seemingly random. Real vs seemingly real. When science meets philosophy.
Quaildorf ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 17:52:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your understanding is mistaken. Quantum mechanics are fundamentally random. For example, radioactive decay depends on quantum tunneling of the particles that make up an unstable nucleus. At quantum scales, all particles exhibit the same particle/wave duality that photons do. Every particle has a wave function, a probability cloud instead of an exact location.
for_the_Emperor ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:27:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Please elaborate further if you can, specifically on the random element. Again, as I understand the probability cloud is not necessarily random, just indeterminable, and only defined upon observation. I donโt know anything about quantum tunneling though.
efie ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:02:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/u/Quaildorf is somewhat mixing up randomness and probability. A coin toss is, for all intents and purposes, random, as the result is 50/50. It is impossible to accurately predict the outcome. However quantum tunneling* has a well-defined probability. We cannot determine exactly when transmission will occur, only that is has, say, 70% chance of occurring within a certain time. If a die were weighted so that a 6 occurred 70% of the time, you would not that is random.
So, quantum mechanics is unpredictable and the exact events are immeasurable, but their probabilities are definable.
*Quantum tunneling is what happens when a particle 'tunnels' through a barrier and that particle is found in a location that would be impossible classically. Imagine a positive charge (like a proton) managing to break through a wall of positive charge (from which it is overwhelmingly repelled). The probability of finding the proton on the other side of the barrier (the transmission probability) is well-defined, and this is directly linked to the half-life of a particle.
thurken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:54:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If we can't we predict the individual result of a coin toss, is it because even though it is deterministic we are not able to fully understand it, or because under the exact same conditions (also of location and time, so basically impossible to test) it could produce a different output?
It seems to me probabilities are a good way to model behaviors we have trouble explaining/predicting individually, but I am not convinced things are not deterministic. If you have pointers of proofs whether certain things are non-deterministic, I am very interested but I have not seen it and I am not sure such a proof could exist.
obscureferences ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:02:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, in case you were wondering. Variables we haven't considered or controlled add to the randomness of the result. It's entirely possible to eliminate those variables though and make the result of a coin toss totally predictable.
anne-so ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:44:04 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this is not tue, I remember seeing a video with scientist using a "robot coin tosser" able to predicts coin toss results
Umbrias ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The time evolution of a system is deterministic so time will always pass the same way (based on my poor understanding of it), but the physical outcomes are not. The point is that if you went back to the starting time, as well as every other starting quality of a system, the result would be different, but the macro change of the system would remain the same, and the way time passes will remain the same.
There are hypotheses in physics about hidden numbers etc. that would make quantum physics fully deterministic if these unknown values existed, but I don't believe they are very fleshed out at this time.
At the end of the day if these quantum behaviors are fully deterministic but effectively random, then there isn't a difference at the front end. However, many things point towards quantum physics being random, rather than only undeterminable.
thurken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:56:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How can you prove that?
Can you describe (or link) some of those things?
Umbrias ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:16:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know if you could experimentally. I'd ask a physicist on that one.
The easiest example is the famous double slit experiment. No matter how precise you make the experiment, you will always have the deflection bands. These bands exist because of a probability wave.
Another good example is Bell's Theorem, but I'll just link a nice video for that, as minutephysics will do an infinitely better job explaining it than I ever could.
axberka ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 16:09:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the paradox(maybe paradox isn't the word im looking for) I have come across is this, there may be a name for it but its something that has been bouncing around in my head.
No matter what happens in our universe, the universe will end up in some particular way. My life will go some kind of way, whether dying tomorrow or 40 years from now. There is some way, inevitably that it will end up. If that is the case, then the universe is in a sense deterministic. what comes into play when I say "well I will just do nothing until I starve" if I did do that then that is the way that my life was "predetermined"
Quaildorf ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 16:42:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's one way of thinking about it. But do you have any reason to think that way?
What if every decision each of us makes creates an alternate timeline?
There's an idea about "quantum immortality", where if you ever die your consciousness jumps to the nearest alternate timeline where you survive.
Those ideas sound ridiculous at first, but they're just as unprovable as the idea that everything is predetermined.
axberka ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:05:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have no idea Iโm just a 22 year old economics/finance student haha but the whole infinite universe theory is weird to me because it would mean a few things.
It would mean we have Free will, which I donโt think we do. The whole existence of other universes implies we could have, and in those universes, did make other choices.
To suggest we donโt have Free will and impose that there is still multiple universes would be to imply that the laws of nature dont exist(it would suppose that forces of nature donโt have typical ways in which they interact. Meaning that the way the wind blew could have been different if X. Well the only way X would have been different is if there was Free will)
If we suppose there is Free will, that would mean there would be infinite, infinite universes. What I mean by that is, suppose Iโm walking down the street. For each step I could make an almost infinite number of choices about that step. About the muscles contracting in my leg. In my ear. In my arm. Each contains an infinite number of choices. Not to mention in the past of my life, the infinite infinite number of possibilities of choices Iโve made leading up to that. And then everyone else. In one universe on day 10,567 of my life I flexed my left eye muscle slightly and in that same universe Amanda in Germany didnโt. Itโs similar to the whole vsauce โone infinite can be larger than anotherโ video. This would be the largest infinite imaginable, which would be appropriate I suppose.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:36:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
axberka ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:52:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
maybe I should clarify my example of the wind, because I think you are interpreting it backwards. If there is no free will, and to also suggest there are multiple universes is not possible. If there is no free will, we are being acted on by our very nature, or the nature of our brain at the very least. In other words our brain is acting in a way that is responsive to stimulus similar to wind is reactive to forces around it, blowing this way or that way due to external forces like a car passing.
To suggest that we would have acted differently in a different universe, one that is devoid of free will, is to say that gravity could have also acted differently or wind in the same circumstances as the other universe which is not true.
I think that explains better
neringi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:22:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your comments by far have been the most eloquent and elegant way to describe deterministic universe, thank you. I'll add my two cents and say that I do not believe in infinite universe existing since it creates a paradox. If the multiverse is infinite then there is a 100% chance of any universe existing but then what about a universe where multiverse does not exist. Well then by contradiction you can say that - no, the multiverse cannot be infinite at all!
axberka ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:32:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow thank you for saying that I really appreciate the kind words! And that is a very good point, I would like to hear the explanation on that.
Iced_Bacon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:47:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting point on this. I think there are two counterpoint to this, though. 1, it could simply be that the universes are independent. Thus, if a universe were created in which there were no "connection" to the other multiverse, it doesn't invalidate the existence of the multiverse. It simply exists independent of it. 2, just because their is an infinite number of occurrences of something doesn't necessarily mean that anything can happen. This is a common fallacy. If there are rules that simple cannot be broken, it doesn't matter how many times you try to break it, it won't break. Thus, if it were impossible to create a universe independent of the multiverse, it doesn't matter how many universes are created, none would ever exist without connection to the greater multiverse.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:18:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm a bit late to this thread but even if there are an infinite number of universes, that doesn't mean that every conceivable universe has to exist. Kind of like how there are an infinite amount of odd numbers, but that doesn't mean one of them has to be divisible by 2. There could be an infinite number of universes yet some characteristics could be the same across all of them.
Quaildorf ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 17:29:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But why do you think we don't have free will?
I used to think that as well, but we as humans are more biased than we like to think. I think with questions like this we tend towards explanations that make us most comfortable, even if we do it subconsciously.
Things like infinity are difficult, even incomprehensible subjects. It's easy to dismiss "infinite universes" as ridiculous. But is it impossible? I don't think so.
I think we do have free will, but there's really nothing to prove it either way. I think the fact that we feel like we have free will is significant, as is the fact that quantum mechanics are non-deterministic. But god only knows haha.
axberka ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:35:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt think itโs ridiculous, I think itโs hard to rationalize is all. I think we donโt have Free will because our brains act faster than we have time to understand we are thinking things. Computers can guess what you will do before you do them, based on brain waves. Sam Harris has a number of thought experiments on it(disregarding if you have prior thoughts on Harris): https://youtu.be/7t_Uyi9bNS4
Edit: hereโs a better one I found actually https://youtu.be/gfpq_CIFDjg
craziedave ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:04:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't believe in free will either. The thought came to me a couple years ago. maybe I don't know about quantum mechanics enough but I thought top physicists don't have it all figured out either.
Anyway I thought of it as like a ball that you could kick. If you know the forces that are about to act on it you can tell how its going to move and where it will end up. As a person all your past experiences, anything you see, feel, or hear etc are like these forces and will effect your decision making in the future. The problem is we don't know everyones past experiences or necessarily how they might effect someone. Everything is already moving. It's like suddenly looking a a foosball table with multiple balls on it already that could even have some spin to them we don't notice so there motion might appear random at first.
Redactedrevisionist ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:40:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think thereโs a big difference between having a number of possibilities or probabilities and having something predetermined. If you have a long enough view and are super loose with โpredeterminedโ then you could apply it to literally everything because of the casual nature in which we try to understand or view things.
Tropical_Bob ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:38:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Think of it like this: who you are is determined by the stimuli present in the environment you were born and raised in. That all collectively made you the way you are now. Well, in order for those stimuli to turn out the way they are to make you as you are now, all the people who influenced every bit of that needed to turn out exactly the way they were. And you can go on and on up the chain until you end up at all the natural occurrences of the universe playing out in a very specific pattern that result in the you that you are. This is to say, the past happened exactly as it did to arrive at the exact present we are at now.
Now, where determinism comes into play is that the you that you are now will act in a way defined by your experiences. Whatever reasons you believe you came to the conclusion of any decision, it's all a result of everything that influenced you, which we can already say happened in an exact way. Extending this to all other people around us, everyone will act according to the pattern laid out from the very beginning of interactivity at the beginning of time.
If everyone will act in a specific manner, then you can push this into the future. All of your actions and those around you will mold future people to act in specific ways, who will then act in specific ways, and so on and so forth.
Regarding quantum uncertainty, the only way that can influence different outcomes of a person's will is if our consciousness is tied into quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics is actually random and not just unpredictable based on our inability to properly measure it. And I would argue that's a hard thing to advocate, since even whatever rules that govern quantum mechanics will have been set in motion by what occurred at the very beginning of time.
This all may be able to be explained more concisely, but I clearly was not able to do that.
Laimbrane ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:09:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you rewind time 100 years and reset the universe to exactly the way it was 100 years ago, it would play out slightly differently because of quantum randomness. Is the universe still deterministic or not?
g0ldent0y ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:26:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it proven that the randomness wouldn't just be the same. I wonder? only because we cannot predict quantum randomness beforehand it doesn't mean it wouldn't play out the exact same if we turn back time.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:00:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
it would probably play out differently, though I'm admittedly not a quantum physicist haha! Though, I would still say that it is at least in a sense deterministic because that randomness will manifest in a certain way in the end, we just do not currently know in what way it will manifest.
If we rewind time 100 years, the next 100 years would be different but still determined in a certain way. admittedly different than the original way, but will still end up in a certain configuration no?
Laimbrane ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:49:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But isn't that a form of playing the result?
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:59:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
can you elaborate?
Laimbrane ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:30:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Forgive me for quoting Wikipedia, but "Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible" and that "Determinism is the philosophical theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes." But if some sort of completely random mechanism affects quantum-level events, such that rewinding and replaying the universe results in a different result, then at least that definition of Determinism doesn't work. As you say "it will still end up in a certain configuration," but that certain configuration is not pre-determined (according to that randomness), which is at least an implied property of Determinism. Thus it would be playing the result to say "this is exactly what was supposed to happen," the same way that fans of a sports team that just won a close championship by a lucky bounce might say "they won because they're the best." Well, not necessarily. What occurred may have only occurred because something had to occur, in which case it wouldn't be fair to state that what did occur was also the only thing that could have occurred.
But allow me to step further. Without understanding how those random quantum events actually happen, we have a potential mechanism whereby an extra-physical soul (or deity, etc.) could be able to affect the physical world in a way that we can't measure but that nullifies what appears to be an otherwise ironclad case for determinism.
In other words, without understanding how those random events come to be, we can't say for certain that they're completely based on consistent laws of physics.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:43:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i agree with you fully, that is why I have been using qualifiers for what I mean like saying predeterminism in quotations, or saying things like "in a sense".
let me put forth something I thought of while reading your comment, not something I necessarily I agree with but bear with me. If a extra physical deity was affecting our physical world that we cannot measure to push the world in a particular way, would that not be an argument for a version of "predeterminism" as a deity is in essence determining our outcome no matter our choices?
Laimbrane ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:58:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It would depend on whether or not we could "push back," I would think.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:11:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In this, we could safely assume that this deity is beyond our ability to push back and is beyond conventional physics, i think is a logical conclusion to draw. This deity would eventually manipulate the nature of our reality to their liking, in time. Maybe not now, but time would be meaningless to this thing so while we could steer humanity in one direction but eventually it would correct back to the way the stringpuller intends rendering our choices ultimately meaningless.
humodx ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:00:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree with your argument. If the future state can't be predicted by analyzing the current state, the system is non-deterministic.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:06:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
fair enough, lets tease this out because like I said I have been chewing on this whole topic for a little while and find it really interesting. We can both agree that we will, probably, die one day if technology does not advance far enough to allow us to live forever no?
humodx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:25:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:58:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
ok, so we agree we are slowly dying that much is evident. Because we know you will die, then we know something has to kill you. Liver failure, hit by a car, shot by a crazy person etc something will take your life.
I am not saying "you cannot avoid death by gun shot from crazy person" I am saying no matter how you die, that was the way it was going to be because your life has a beginning and end, much like a movie that we do not know the end to.
Your thoughts?
humodx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:51:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think this argument is a bit too loose. I'm arguing that if you can't predict with 100% certainty the future state of a system from its current state, it's non-deterministic.
You're argument boils down to "from state A, we'll eventually arrive at something like state B", which isn't enough to prove determinism.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:04:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i think the crux of this is I am not arguing for determinism, but a form of determinism. I think your summation of my idea is pretty close, like I said this idea is something I am chewing on even now. I think a more accurate summation of this thought I am working through is "from state A, we will arrive at state B. State B is a guaranteed state we will arrive at. What are the implications of this when we look at how to live life, and how we think about the state of life itself"
From the beginning I have used quotes around predetermined, and used qualifiers like in a sense because I don't think I agree with determinism, because like you have shown things are not predetermined in the full sense
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:24:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
axberka ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:42:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that's exactly how I feel, all we can do is try to do our best, and help as many people as we can achieve a fruitful life, regardless if its determined or not.
PeterGibbons316 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:05:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But if it's predetermined you can't try to do those things. Either you are predetermined to do those things or you aren't.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:35:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I do not think what I am trying to say terms of "predetermined", but that seems to be the best word to describe what I am thinking of. My idea comes from the notion that the universe is logically going to go one way, if we looked at the history of everything where we stand and where it will ultimately go, if I decide to "fight it" and decide to sit in my room all day doing nothing until I die, ironically this is what my life was going to be in the grand scheme of things.
imagine the history of humans as a timeline, past present and future. Of course I realize time is not that simple, but I am using this as a functional description of what I am trying to describe. So imagine the history of the Humans as a timeline, there realistically will be a beginning and end. While we do not know the end, people will make decisions that form the outcome.
Just like my life, it will go in a particular way. My choices will contribute to it, whether I choose to follow a cruel path or virtuous path means that my life was going to follow a cruel or virtuous path.
PeterGibbons316 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:45:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think this is correct. Random events exist, and so the universe can logically go any number of ways. You are using the result to validate a particular path, but the reality is that at any turn some random event could have gone another way to change the outcome.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:01:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
well random events really do not take place, in a pragmatic sense. Maybe in a quantum sense, which is arguable that it is not random but seems random, but physics exist. Maybe I am misunderstanding you here.
if we could look into a crystal ball, see the future and how things turn out. The future would no doubt be already taking into consideration our learning about that future, therefore no matter how we act going forward would be the way in which things were "predetermined" to turn out. The only difference in reality is that we do not have access to that crystal ball
PeterGibbons316 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:13:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can't. Because random events exist that change the outcome.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:17:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What random events are you talking about here so I can understand what you mean
PeterGibbons316 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:29:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm referring to this discussion higher up in the chain.
Basically, what we know of quantum mechanics tells us that indeterminable random events occur.
axberka ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:37:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i mean yes on a quantum level things are unpredictable right now as we understand it, that does not mean that in reality it is actually random, just that we observe it as random currently. if we understood quantum mechanics fully it would not be random
In the discussion you linked, a user says coin flips are random but if we understood the environmental elements of the coin flip(meaning the wind, the force used on the coin, the direction it was pointed, the exact weight of the coin, etc) we could predict exactly how it would land.
HappyDaysInYourFace ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:53:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If the universe is a quantum fluctuation, then the universe (or the multiverse, depending on your definition) would be in a sense both infinite and eternal.
In a sense, nothing would ever truly die because in an infinite universe, everything would exist in an infinite amount. Therefore, the universe never truly dies and nobody ever truly dies because they will always exist in an infinite amount.
In a sense, the universe is deterministic in a sense that everything exists; and everything will happen. But is random in the sense that we cannot predict the result of random event (like flipping a coin), we only know of the probability of events occuring.
KillerPacifist1 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 19:18:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It doesn't really matter if the universe is completely deterministic, completely random, or somewhere in between. There really isn't room for free will.
If the universe is completely deterministic than of course you have no free will. But if it is completely random events will happen at random, including your thoughts, and you have no control over how they turn out. If you did it wouldn't be random. As neither randomness nor determinism allows for free will, why would some combination of the two give you free will?
daemin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:51:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
DisdainInTheBrain ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:23:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it truly random? Or is it just humanly unpredictable?
This is another philosophical problem: are certain theories โwrongโ or just beyond the scope of human understanding and interpretation.
Iโve looked at quantum physics a fair bit and my basic understanding is that they donโt conform to current interpretations of classical mechanics. That is not to say that they must be random from a mechanical point of view, but we can definitely say that the human brain does not have the knowledge and/or capacity to make predictions for such an arcane phenomenon in physics because we are simply โnot smart enoughโ. At least, not yet.
WhiteRaven42 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:20:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Random chance does not somehow make free will a thing. The outcome of a quantum event is that outcome.
Determinism can include random events. Because those events are determined by set rules. There's nothing "other" deciding the outcome.
Sulleyy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:09:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can we prove that anything is fundamentally random? Maybe we can't guess it but that doesn't mean it isn't predetermined.
OSUfan88 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:00:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is absolutely true.
ClosetWeeb3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:19:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, ok! Glad we solved this one!
mister-_e ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:05:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, when you think about it that way, that seems reasonable, but then you are missing the point of general relativity that says, that all events exist at the same time, meaning that past present and future exist simultaniously, meaning determinism, and quantum mechanics can be deterministic in some sense once you apply many worlds theorem, besides to talk about quantum uncertainty is to actually study it deeply, like you have to know how it goes, since there are things you can knownfor certain, like spin, or energy, or position, it's just what you observe to be certain gives that uncertainty, or so I'm told, haven't had the course yet, and also the bigger universe, the one we observe with our eyes is deterministic, and also large quantum systems, like thermodynamical systems can be predictable, except for individual particles, since there's too many of them
PainDore ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:27:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no consensus on determinism. Just look up the wiki:
Also might want to look into superdeterminism
efie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:52:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe at large by definition is not quantum. The universe at large is classical. Objects have trajectories and their paths are well-defined. Whether or not you call that 'deterministic' is up to you, but the universe at large is far from random.
Gabrosin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:44:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just because we currently believe that quantum events are fundamentally random does not make it true. Science has a long history of taking events that appear random and coming up with the means to measure and predict them.
Keasbeyknight ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:18:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't want to sound dismal, but just because the world is not deterministic does not mean free will exists. Whether or not a random event occurred does not mean it was within your control. While free will may exist, I don't believe a quantum argument is relevant.
Athrowawayinmay ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 15:05:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If humans are physical things, and human consciousness the byproduct of those physical things, then you are right. There is no reason to believe the carbon in your brain and the electric/chemical recations in your brain are somehow not also determined by the same laws of physics as any other electric/chemical reaction.
It really makes you think about our laws and justice system. If determinism is true (as I am deterministically inclined to believe), then that means criminals and their actions are an inevitable byproduct of the starting conditions of the unvierse around them. They commit crimes, not by choice, but by inevitable deterministic destiny. So how is it right to punish them?
dsds548 ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 15:45:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you study law theory, that's exactly what they say. Some of the theory states that the poor upbringing is the result of the law not protecting them as children so that they would grow up to be upstanding citizens. Children who are abused are supposed to be taken away and protected from their parents, but that isn't always the case. In most hardened repeat offenders, you will see a pattern and you can pretty much trace it back to their bad childhood.
However, the law serves more than one purpose and that's why the law still exists. Communication, deterrent, and retribution. The punishment is more a deterrent for people thinking of doing it and retribution for the victims of the crime. It gets really interesting with repeat offenders, because now almost all three are invalid, but do we remove them from society or not?
Coconut_Biscuits ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:48:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's right to punish them because the punishment was deterministically inevitable as well. Some matter (criminal) caused a change to some other matter (crime), and because of this, some other matter (law enforcement) is going to affect them as a reaction (punishment).
Nao_Leia ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:45:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The punish is a natural consequence too. A cancer cell has made no decision to be so, but it should still be exterminated
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:25:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the justice system could work better with this view. Because โpunishmentโ could focus mainly on practical considerations: removing dangerous people from society, and rehabilitation. And less on eye-for-an-eye vengeance.
otis_reading ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:22:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Except you really have no idea what those laws are. We have science and it's set of laws, but at the end of the day science to us is just the best way we have of explaining the physical world at this very instance. Those laws are always changing, and to assume we know them all now is pure folly. It isn't Truth (capital "T").
Pick up a physics textbook today and compare it to one from 1918. A lot has changed and so will our understanding of "those laws" / Truth in another hundred years.
So we can only contemplate the actual purest forms of the laws of physics (i.e. Truth). And there is nothing in our contemplation of what those laws ultimately will be that prohibits consciousness or free-will.
Coroxn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:27:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Most first world countries 'rehabilitate', actually.
DoAYCWM ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 13:48:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Causal Determinism
TheRedComet ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:38:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Aww I read this as "Casual Determinism" and thought it sounded fun
Coroxn ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:26:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are in the perfect goldilocks zone, to me. Intelligent enough to be happy, but not too intelligent to be always aware of how scripted our happiness is.
aFlyingGuru ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:50:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
what if I'm neither
Coroxn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:01:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We can't all be winners.
TheAC997 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:57:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is "we"? If "we" means our brains, bodies, genetics, preferences and all that, then "determinism is true" and "we are in control" can both be true.
savemejebus0 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 14:40:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am convinced free will doesn't exist. It was weird at first but you have no free will in the matter to live your life as if it does lol.
dsds548 ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 15:38:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Totally agree! The species we are, the gender we are, our genetics, our upbringing... we have absolutely no control over that. Our thoughts and behavior is generally shaped by all these things that we have no control over.
proud_heretic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:26:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can read more about some arguments from a compatiblist view. Compatiblism being an ideology whose adherents believe that determinism and free will are compatible ideas. Most lay determinists would consider determinism incompatible with free will, but that may not be as straightforward as it seems.
Carolina Sartorio defends a compatiblist idea of free will by discussing some specific grounding conditions for free will, specifically an actual sequence view of grounds for free will. I do not necessarily agree with her, but it's a compelling and sophisticated case against incompatiblism that you might find interesting. The book is called "Causation and Free Will".
WhiteRaven42 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:18:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We don't have free will (the concept is actually impossible to define logically because it makes no sense). The only way that could be viewed as a "problem" is if you first ascribed to the fantasy that behavior is somehow causeless.
But causeless behavior actually isn't something to be enamored with, is it? Why desire for behavior to be inexplicable?
LocalGM ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:51:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Those overly toxic-positive people always say shit like "put your mind to it and you can do anything" but you cant change the past. Some things cannot be undone. That and our actions as a result of said things is fate. All we can do is observe, breathe and attempt to make the best decisions we can from the hand the devils dealt us. Thats the soft determist part of fate.
Well at least thats what i garner.
roostercrowe ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:41:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Laplaceโs Demon is my favorite thought experiment about this
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:39:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Has anyone here read Eric Fromm?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:13:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:28:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why exactly?
MistroHen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:54:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does that actually matter though? A lot of people get freaked out by this but whether we have free will or not our lives are going to continue very similar to how theyโve always been and itโs not going to make a difference.
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:22:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It does if you consider the criminal justice system and the way we punish people for crimes of which sometimes they have no control over. But that's a separate discussion that I'm not completely knowledgeable about.
MistroHen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:25:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If nobody is responsible for anything they do then you could argue everything that happens has to happen. So if they are put in prison they should be put in prison. If you use the free will to show the flaws in the justice system from the criminals perspective you have to do it from the judge and juryโs perspective.
We may aswell carry on as things are. If we have free will then nothing should change, if we donโt nothing can. This is why this is one of those philosophical questions that doesnโt bother me.
martixy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:11:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And that's where your problem starts.
Quantum mechanics would like a word. As others already noted.
zetablox ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:04:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i wonder if you mean mechanistic instead of deterministic? we know from physics it's definitely not deterministic.
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:07:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Obviously not a physicist but from what I understand the juryโs out. We know of events that appear to be random, but only because itโs so difficult to observe the mechanisms. But weโd really need a physicist to explain whatโs going on there.
Sirnacane ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:23:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
maybe change your definition of โfree willโ to โindividual will.โ Even if itโs all completely determined, what I do is determined by my local determination system.
d34dG1rlW4lk1ng ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:42:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โIn a way, in our contemporary world view, it's easy to think that science has come to take the place of God. But some philosophical problems remain as troubling as ever. Take the problem of free will. This problem has been around for a long time, since before Aristotle in 350 B.C. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, these guys all worried about how we can be free if God already knows in advance everything you're gonna do. Nowadays we know that the world operates according to some fundamental physical laws, and these laws govern the behavior of every object in the world. Now, these laws, because they're so trustworthy, they enable incredible technological achievements. But look at yourself. We're just physical systems too, right? We're just complex arrangements of carbon molecules. We're mostly water, and our behavior isn't gonna be an exception to these basic physical laws. So it starts to look like whether its God setting things up in advance and knowing everything you're gonna do or whether it's these basic physical laws governing everything, there's not a lot of room left for freedom. So now you might be tempted to just ignore the question, ignore the mystery of free will. Say "Oh, well, it's just an historical anecdote. It's sophomoric. It's a question with no answer. Just forget about it." But the question keeps staring you right in the face. You think about individuality for example, who you are. Who you are is mostly a matter of the free choices that you make. Or take responsibility. You can only be held responsible, you can only be found guilty, or you can only be admired or respected for things you did of your own free will. So the question keeps coming back, and we don't really have a solution to it. It starts to look like all our decisions are really just a charade. Think about how it happens. There's some electrical activity in your brain. Your neurons fire. They send a signal down into your nervous system. It passes along down into your muscle fibers. They twitch. You might, say, reach out your arm. It looks like it's a free action on your part, but every one of those - every part of that process is actually governed by physical law, chemical laws, electrical laws, and so on. So now it just looks like the big bang set up the initial conditions, and the whole rest of human history, and even before, is really just the playing out of subatomic particles according to these basic fundamental physical laws. We think we're special. We think we have some kind of special dignity, but that now comes under threat. I mean, that's really challenged by this picture. So you might be saying, "Well, wait a minute. What about quantum mechanics? I know enough contemporary physical theory to know it's not really like that. It's really a probabilistic theory. There's room. It's loose. It's not deterministic." And that's going to enable us to understand free will. But if you look at the details, it's not really going to help because what happens is you have some very small quantum particles, and their behavior is apparently a bit random. They swerve. Their behavior is absurd in the sense that its unpredictable and we can't understand it based on anything that came before. It just does something out of the blue, according to a probabilistic framework. But is that going to help with freedom? I mean, should our freedom be just a matter of probabilities, just some random swerving in a chaotic system? That starts to seem like it's worse. I'd rather be a gear in a big deterministic physical machine than just some random swerving. So we can't just ignore the problem. We have to find room in our contemporary world view for persons with all that that entails; not just bodies, but persons. And that means trying to solve the problem of freedom, finding room for choice and responsibility, and trying to understand individuality.โ
MintyTruffle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:07:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consciousness is really troubling. Why put someone in the driver seat with no controls? It's terrible to be aware of your mortality and that one day you will die, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Hazza40 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:36:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Okay Sotha Sil
MagMaggaM ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:57:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno about you, but I'm perfectly happy to blame the universe for all my dumb decisions and me being a shithead.
Quelklef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:23:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am also a determinist, and like this one a lot.
And there's something slightly different, but somewhat related, which I also like: Most of the actions I take aren't even decided by "me". Let me illustrate:
The thought came to me as I was eating dinner. I have a bit of trouble stopping eating when I'm full, and I was thoughtlessly snacking on grapes and sipping water. I'd intermittently eat a grape, take a sip of water, play with my hair, bounce my leg, or do something else "fidgety". What I realized is that not a single one of those actions was taken with purpose; none were taken "by me". They were all entirely thoughtless. I could "regain control" and stop them and choose to take these actions thoughtfully, but I hadn't been. And I think with most of the actions we take in our day-to-day lives, we aren't.
I'm listening to music and typing this comment. The movement of my fingers is thoughtless since it's muscle memory. As I listen to the song (Triumphant by Royksopp, would recommend if you like... contemplative music) my body sways and my head bobs thoughtlessly. My hands jump off the keyboard as I think about the next thing I want to write, and without thinking I crack my fingers and crack my neck. A small while later, I finish a sentence and take another 'impulsive break' to stretch my back and arms.
As I started this paragraph, I sat up and so automatically adjusted my monitor.
I would argue that all of these actions were taken "not by me". I have power to control them, but I still think that each individual movement was controlled by something less thoughtful. And I don't mean this in the sense that it's my muscles making the movements, but rather that there's a bit of my brain separate from "me" which is giving out the orders.
The explanation that occurs to me right now for this is as follows: The "me" I consider operates at a very high level. Right now, it's pondering the philosophy of this idea. "I" want to put my ideas down into this comment box to transfer them to you. A "non-me" section of my brain fulfills this request, and it's able to do so autonomously because I have mastery over English, my body, and my computer.1
After writing this, I feel kind of weird. I feel like I'm in the back seat of my body, and I don't know who the driver is. Yikes.
1 I think this explanation is a little too strong, but it gets the idea across.
kekekefear ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:23:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You would like sci-fi novels Blindsight and Exopraxia by Peter Watts where he argues strongly that we as self-aware agents not in control and most of the time are just passenger who thinks he decides something, but decisions were already made by our unconscious mind, who's in charge.
Quelklef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:50:22 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ooh! Yeah, sounds like I would.
Also, that reminds me of: "researchers using brain scanners could predict people's decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them".
thewickedgoat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:21:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You might look at it wrong.
You have the option to pull the trigger on a gun, either you pull it or you don't. Before the outcome happens (you lowering the gun, or pulling the trigger) you are in a superposition of probabilities of either pulling or not pulling. Until you commit to one of these actions there is not a definite state.
You can always make the case for the entire universe existing for being "determined" but individual human actions, are more or less "free".
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:55:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But you didnโt author the action. To be cognizant of the action that means you chose the action, which means you need to be cognizant of the action. Itโs a recursive practice. Thereโs no free will on any level. Whatever prompts you to choose to either pull the trigger or not itโs not up to you. Itโs only the illusion of free will.
thewickedgoat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:34:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In a 50/50 scenario wether you want to pull a trigger or not always has the given person knowing full well what options he has.
It's more nuanced than that, obviously - but saying we have "no free will" means that everything was predetermined. But in the moment JUST BEFORE you chose to pull the trigger or not - thats where there is no true predetermined outcome.
The second before you choose to pull the trigger or not - a superposition of either pulling it or not pulling it is created.
It's only when the action is performed the definite state is determined. I would say free will is a given for concious beings. There is always an option.
Maybe I misunderstand you - but if I was given the choice to pull the trigger or not - not factoring in the intentions - just a simple dare, to pull a trigger - what makes either outcome predetermined?
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:48:35 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're incorrect. It has already been well established through rigorous experimentation that the mind makes decisions sometimes several seconds before we are consciously aware of them. How can it be free will if we are not even conscious of our own decisions. To be conscious of one's decision one has to decide first. Something else is at work here. This is all discounting the obvious timeline of events that landed you with a gun in your hands, the first one being your actual existence of which you had absolutely no decision over, not to mention your upbringing, or your genes.
thewickedgoat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:14:14 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd like some sources for this.
As I stated. Until the point of the trigger being pulled, there is a superposition of probabilities for either outcome. It's not until right before the action happens that it's determined. In your mind it might have been determined already due to the circumstances, but everything around you is observing a superposition of each outcome.
Maybe your term of "free will" is flawed then - because free will is a human term. The bottleneck in these debates are humans trying to describe a feature of our reality we don't quite understand yet - consciousness. If there are more than one option, there is the possibility of another outcome.
You're basically saying everything we do is basically 100% math. I get why'd you say it - but again, this is something far more fundamental than consciouss free will.
If I have the option to pull a trigger or let go of it. There are no 100% certain outcome before the trigger is actually pulled. Our concious decisions are not 100% predetermined. Subconcious decisions are a "guide" and can stimulate certain outcomes - fx some smells in stores are made to compell our subconciousness to be drawn to the item it's associated with- but we can still ignore these subconcious signals.
From your logic, these signals are 100% unavoidable. But then why do we consider both outcomes then? If I pull the trigger serval seconds later (as you claim) than my brain has actually subconsciously made it's decision, then doesn't that indicate that some conscious processing of the situation took effect? The "rigorous experimentation" as you claim are most likely not about "free will" but about the step in between.
Free will, depends on how you look at it.
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:58:36 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/ http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide
Okay well if your mind makes decisions without you being consciously aware of them how is it free will then?
thewickedgoat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:05:33 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The keyword here being "can".
You can think of free will how you want, but saying that free will doesn't exists is flawed.
Cheddarlad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:48:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just some food for thought: you can think of the universe as being probabilistic (causes increase the chance of an effect), instead of deterministic (causes cause effects).
So, in any analysis, you can think of what increases or decreases the probability of something happening, instead of whether it causes it or not. It's a more useful way of thinking, and psychologists are turning into it in recent theories.
Take Relational Frame Theory, as an example: any relation between verbal events can be traced back to a history of pairings (you saying "mama", and looking at your mom), which can tell you something about it increasing or decreasing that relation's chance of happening (you calling your mom "mama" in another circumnstance).
ughaibu ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:14:25 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why?
Consider these two simple arguments:
1) a determined world is reversible
2) life requires irreversible processes
3) therefore, there is no life in a determined world.
and
1) free will is demonstrable
2) determinism is not demonstrable
3) in any dilemma between a demonstrable claim and an undemonstrable claim, we must prefer the demonstrable.
DanielCDelgado ยท 651 points ยท Posted at 15:50:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dennis is asshole, why Charlie hate?
mipadi ยท 272 points ยท Posted at 17:00:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because Denis is a bastardt man.
nagol93 ยท 111 points ยท Posted at 17:30:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hmmmm....... na, I dont think I wrote that
[deleted] ยท 71 points ยท Posted at 19:45:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
HOW MANY OTHER GOD DAMN ILLITERATES DO WE KNOW.
TheCSKlepto ยท 60 points ยท Posted at 18:41:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Paaasss...
Frostedbutler ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:20:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You definitely wrote that
DuoRame ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:14:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah yeah, I was going by Chrundle at the time, wasn't I
Yankeeknickfan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:42:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because of the implication
The_Grizzly ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:00:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
TOOLS! I LIKE TO BIND, I LIKE TO BE BOUND!!
LastMinuteScrub ยท 111 points ยท Posted at 14:16:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Solipsism. While basically impossible to disprove it you assume it's wrong so life is not utterly pointless.
lizardladder ยท 34 points ยท Posted at 18:22:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I feel the same way about moral nihilism.
commit_bat ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 19:44:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I have no strong feelings about it one way or the other
thebrandcannon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:59:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh yes. The balance of things.
Lastsurvivor18 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:46:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Tell my wife hello
[deleted] ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 20:22:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whenever I hear this I think "I must be pretty goddamn smart to imagine this fucked up complexe world!"
LastMinuteScrub ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:31:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The concept of learning something new gets really weird with metaphysical solipsism. Because you're basically teaching yourself something that you were not aware of before. So you have to knowingly block yourself from knowing something.
Which can be the case because the laws of logic are just the product of your own mind.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:33:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or someone else imagined it and is feeding you false information. Solipsism is simply the idea that you can only know that your mind exists, not that everything also comes from there.
agage3 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:05:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone on Reddit is a bot except you.
Pikesmakker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:26:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can observe and experience other people using Reddit though
LastMinuteScrub ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:35:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nice try, bot!
meliorist ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:30:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are The Bot
CrushHazard ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 21:54:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโd argue that the evidence is extremely overwhelming yet inconclusive that solipsism is not a thing. In a way, solipsism is a perfect example of natural human reasoning: โI believe this because I have seen no evidence to the contrary.โ
Like a lot of kids, I dabbled in solipsism when I was young. It becomes much harder to believe when you have years and years of meeting people and hearing about their own thoughts, emotions and feelings.
LastMinuteScrub ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 22:12:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean it goes the same way around. There's no actual proof the world around me really exists in the way I perceive it, so I'm stuck believing it until the contrary is proven to be true.
As I said I deny solipsism from a purely practical standpoint, as me having a discussion with myself over anything would be pointless so I assume that people around me and their individual minds actually exist.
CrushHazard ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:26:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I never sold it as conclusive proof โ it is certainly a preponderance of evidence though. You canโt possibly think that there is as much evidence of solipsism as there is that the universe exists.
The concept of proof itself could very well be a figment if your imagination, so itโs a bit of a Catch-22 if you are arguing solipsism in the context of reason/logic.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:03:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A preponderance of evidence is not the same as sufficient evidence though, and if we follow the generally accepted definition of knowledge as justified true belief, using perceived observations as evidence when we are questioning those very observations seems to beg the question of whether they are true. This means you have not sufficiently justified your belief and therefore do not know the answer.
Of course the universe exists, otherwise I couldnโt exist to observe it. But everything I observe within it could be false, either of my own imagination or false information being fed into my mind. That is what solipsism argues.
I would say that reason is a part of oneโs mind, as a mind observes and processes observations, and reasoning is a part of that process. The word itself may originate externally, but the concept that word represents actually exists within the mind, and the mind actually exists, so reason actually exists regardless of whether the information reasoned with is false.
anxiouskid123 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:20:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Instead of looking for an answer try to look for a reason that has the most evidence. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:12:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Alright, Moore believes he has two hands. He definitely perceives two hands, assuming he exists in the first place.
His argument seems to stem from the statement "If the external world exists, I have two hands." His proposition is "I have two hands, the external world exists." But that just begs the question "Do I actually have two hands or do I just think I have two hands?" Converse statements are not a reliable means of proof.
At this point in time, I have spent many hours of free time over the past few years thinking about this, and I can never come up with any actual evidence one way or the other. I have come to the conclusion that there will never be sufficient evidence one way or the other, but I have decided to hold a conscientious belief that the world as I perceive it is real, as it would be impractical to believe otherwise.
CrushHazard ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:37:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then you are not thinking hard enough, or you have a very limited view of what evidence is.
Evidence for solipsism: the fact that the human brain is capable of convincing itself that something is true even when it is just an illusion (e.g. dreams, delusions, etc.) For brevity, I will refer to this universal dream/delusion that the concept of solipsism is based on the Illusion. But this evidence finds itself in a Catch-22, because the evidence itself is part of the Illusion, so it's a very weak argument.
Evidence against solipsism: The universal scope of the Illusion requires enormous intellectual capacity, the fact that the Illusion is fully consistent with its own "laws" and never experiences a "glitch in the matrix" so to speak would require enormous processing power, the fact that so many other people (billions perhaps) have asked themselves the same question about whether or not the world exists makes it extremely likely that your questioning the world's existence is an incident of consciousness and not universal truth....And that's just a summary. Really, the cumulative reliability of the laws of the universe, the behavior of other humans, animals and things you interact with on a daily basis. It's no different than the reasoning that the larger the scope of a proposed conspiracy, the less likely that it is true.
I agree that it is pragmatic to dismiss solipsism, but I disagree that there is no evidence one way or the other. The evidence that the world exists in its perceived form far outweighs the evidence against.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:43:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, saying there is no evidence was stupid on my part. I've heard most of it before, it would have been more accurate to say that I have always found the evidence to be inconclusive, never fully convincing me one way or the other. Thanks for calling me out on that.
anxiouskid123 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For evidence for Solipsism, couldn't it be possible though that in a previous life form I created this world and only created myself to separate from my previous being? And that this life became some sort of playground for me? Or would this be reductio ad absurdum at work
CrushHazard ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:27:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think that is possible โ definitely not absurd or contradictory.
I wasnโt trying to limit the possibilities of how solipsism could function, just providing what I see is the main point of evidence for solipsism. Everyone has had that feeling of waking up from a dream and remembering how real it seemed. Furthermore, in a dream, up can be down, and left can be right, and somehow it all makes sense until we wake up.
anxiouskid123 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:07:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why should solipsism be referred back to the everything is a dream theory? I thought solipsism wasn't about dreaming but more about radical skepticism.
CrushHazard ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:21:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's just the easiest way to relate to solipsism. I think everyone has dabbled in solipsistic thinking at one time or another, and the reason that we all do that probably has to do with our ability to dream.
I suppose the most radical type of skepticism would be the strongest forms of nihilism -- that knowledge, facts, reality, etc. do not exist.
CrushHazard ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:17:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are using the word "though", as if I didn't just say this exact same thing. Who are you arguing with, because it's definitely not me.
Let me save you some time on your journey -- only a tiny segment of your beliefs have sufficient evidence to be proven true.
If you set the bar where you are setting it and seeing the world in black and white with no shades of gray, then sure, but you also must acknowledge that you don't know the answer to anything other that proven scientific facts. All of your opinions, from the most reasonable to the most spurious, are equally as worthless as you claim the belief that the world exists is.
I never said this. Again, you are arguing with a straw man. Stick to what I said, and this will go a lot smoother.
I'm less concerned about what solipsism argues and more concerned with what it ignores.
That's your opinion, I suppose.
Not always. I feel most humans observe and process observation without reasoning at all. The ability of our brain to reason is more or less incidental. It's not designed to reason -- it's designed to recognize patterns and imitate. You could argue that our most primitive form of reasoning is "trial and error", but think of how many people do the same thing over and over again with the same negative outcome expecting a different result?
Humans are adept at surviving collectively -- as a species -- but the capabilities of an individual human to reason are not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, I suppose you did, I must have still been waking up, since I wrote that in bed. I should have stated that I was arguing against there being a preponderance of evidence, in which case my next statement would have made more sense, as I assumed your evidence is based on observations made of the world that is being questioned. Having read some of your other comments I can see this is not the case however.
Yes, I agree. Thinking about solipsism is the reason why I rarely state that I know something, only that I believe or think things. Things are so rarely black and white that most of what I believe I am (or try to be) conscientious could be wrong.
When I read your statement I think I became overly nitpicky about the words you used, as I mistook the universe existing as existence itself, as opposed to one's perception being incorrect. Because of this, I thought there was a misunderstanding of what solipsism is. I am sorry about that, I was wrong.
Yes, I suppose I wrote that as a gut thought. Having reflected on it more, I believe my argument for this comes from the question of where reason resides. I think most would agree that reason itself has no physical form. The only other place I could think of is the mind, although I would be interested in hearing other ideas. I suppose from a purely materialist standpoint since the mind only arises from chemical processes reason is simply switches flipping, but I usually fall somewhere inside dualism, which really muddies the water. So yeah, it's purely an opinion.
I'm not saying every mind reasons well, just that reason is a part of the mind's process (if not a large part for all) and not somewhere(?) else. If reason is a part of the mind, and the mind is known to exist, then the parts of the mind exist, meaning that reason definitely exists and is not a figment of one's imagination, meaning there is no catch-22 and solipsism can be reasonable. Does that make more sense? It still reason resides within the mind, which, as stated by both of us now, is an opinion.
CrushHazard ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:40:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree. If we assume that reason exists in the mind, then there is no Catch-22.
My personal belief is that reason (and when I say reason, I am referring to logic/mathematics/proofs/the order of the universe) is something that exists outside of ourselves, and our brains have evolved to allow us to "tap into" reason, insofar as it helps us survive as a species. You can imagine how "magical" it must have seemed in Medieval times when an astronomer was able to calculate the exact date and time of a total solar eclipse. Now we know a lot more about science, of course, collectively as a species. But if there were a nuclear holocaust and only a few thousand people survived, no one would know how to calculate a solar eclipse. That doesn't mean that it can't be done -- just that the method needs to be rediscovered.
As a former scientist and passionate advocate for scientific reasoning, this is the model of the universe that I subscribe to. There is an order to things that we investigate, discover, calculate, harness, use and admire. We do it using our big brains that have evolved over millennia to be more and more capable of survival. Our ability to harness the order of the universe was a bit of an evolutionary accident. Our physical traits for survival have always been woefully lacking, but our mental ability to invent new ways to shelter, clothe and feed ourselves in a number of harsh environmental conditions has continuously improved upon itself, up until the point where we learned to create fire.
Patergia ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:57:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You could argue that Occamโs razor โprovesโ this theory wrong.
LastMinuteScrub ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:14:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How so? It's only a principle by which you choose a proposed explanation so you can test and possibly falsify it easier not a proof for it being correct.
StickInMyCraw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:45:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only if you assume โpointโ or meaning is inherently tied to others existing. Which is a big assumption.
LastMinuteScrub ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:14:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When all I do is talk to myself then I'd argue any conversation is pointless. Because I know everything that will be said during that beforehand.
StickInMyCraw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:55:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I guess I donโt see why that makes it meaningless. Instead of trying to show why something has no meaning, could you maybe explain how you see meaning arising? Like what to you gives something meaning?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:05:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How can you know a thought before itโs been thought?
bunker_man ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:59:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
you don't have to prove it, since what you should think is true is not what is proven, but what has the most evidence. It has more or less none and reality existing has a ton, so its dead in the water as an idea.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:13:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
r/solipsism
Reddidiot20XX ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:20:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
On Reddit, everyone is a bot except you.
OatmealFox ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:39:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think Sartre does a tidy job of rebutting solipsism with and extension of the cogito. The short version is: I think, so I know I exist. I also feel shame. Shame necessitates an "other", someone who can reduce you to an object of shame, and as such, other people must exist so that I am able to experience shame.
[deleted] ยท 136 points ยท Posted at 13:07:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The multiverse theory is pretty mind blowing and is especially fun because it uses not only philosophy but physics, religion, astronomy and a whole whack of other disciplines.
[deleted] ยท 52 points ยท Posted at 13:13:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 13:15:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is precisely because itโs mind blowing.
Catshit-Dogfart ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:10:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Out of most topics of science and philosophy, it makes for the best fictional setting, it's entertaining to think about.
FrikkinLazer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:40:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester?wprov=sfla1 It is possible to test if a bomb is a dud or not, by exploding it in an alter ative universe, and observing how photons being disrupted in that other universe fail to interact with its counterparts in this universe when the waveform collapses.
Towerss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:25:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Alle shows with some physics or science theme eventually starts shoehorning that boring shit into it
notheOTHERboleyngirl ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:39:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like to think about the opposite. There is one universe, one version of me. Living the one and only life I will ever have. The only death I will ever have. There is no version of me with a better life. There is just me and the rock I reside.
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:22:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the truth no matter what anyone else chooses to believe.
komiroya ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:17:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I had to explain to someone what the Multiverse theory was, after about an hour I got fed up and told him that in one of the universe's he's Batman. All of a sudden it kicked in.
obscureferences ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:30:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I hate multiverse theory because it's equally baseless and abused. It's popular with people who want to disseminate their ego across a spectrum of good and bad identities to reduce focus on the self, and sci-fi writers who want universe-scale implications with the addition of a hat or moustache.
tdrichards74 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:51:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well if you think big enough, all of those are the same thing.
wordsworths_bitch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:19:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
if only it could be true
gaslightlinux ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:57:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see a schism coming in contemporary quantum-new age-atheist-religions, with multiverse vs simulation vs singularity being the main disagreeing tenets.
The-MeroMero-Cabron ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 13:19:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Found Max Tegmark ya'll.
GregorSammySamson ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:58:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Delete this.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:19:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He's right. It's spelled y'all
GregorSammySamson ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:25:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's fine, they hate me because I speak the truth.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:36:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Man, he is one ugly son of a bitch.
NotATuring ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 21:33:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is something I have thought about a while, and I don't think that there's a formalized version of it, but if there is I would like to see it.
Imagine time travel were possible, even if there are some restrictions like "the past can't be changed" or whatever. Well if that's the case then you and a younger version of you should be able to exist at the same time.
If that's true then then you and younger you are not the same person.
If you and younger you are not the same person then "younger you" is dead in the future even though he grew up to be you because he doesn't exist there.
If that is the case then there is no difference between 'dying' and 'living' from the perspective of any version of past you, whether that is the you from 10 years ago or 10 seconds.
Quelklef ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:35:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think discussing this relies on a couple of clarifications:
How does the time travel work, exactly? There are many resolutions to time travel-related paradoxes, and perhaps they apply here, too. For instance, if time travelling transports me to another, duplicate but rewinded, universe, then of course the young "me" isn't me.
What exactly do you mean by "you and younger you are not the same person". Controlled by the same conscience (whatever that is?)? Molecularly equivalent? Molecularly equivalent to me when I was that age (and we're not even considering time relativity)? Do you mean that "younger me" would make the same decisions as me when I was that age, given the same scenario?
NotATuring ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:49:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
1) The specifics of the time travel don't matter, it's just meant to get you to think about conscious states.
2) I mean that from the perspective of your mind younger you and present you are completely distinct from one another. The alternative version of the thought experiment is to say "imagine your entire physical structure could be disassembled such that your mind no longer exists, and then your body is reassembled with the same matter in exactly the same configuration as before so that your mind functions again. Now imagine that not only do they do that but they take equal matter from another source and make an exact duplicate of yourself."
If you can do that, what is the difference between that happening and a moment in time passing? You and duplicate you aren't the same mind. It doesn't make sense to claim that one of them is "you" and the other isn't, and there's no good reason to say that either of them are their past self either.
Quelklef ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:46:08 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Woah.
Okay, if I am understanding you correctly you are saying: Each passing moment in time causes a physical change in our bodies. If we accept that two physically different bodies are not the 'same' person, then we are never the same person as we were a moment ago. That's really cool.
It's unclear to me, though, whether you're talking about this in terms of identity or consciousness. If you're talking about identity, I have a response: I think identity is primarily a function of continuity.
Consider that over our lifetimes, all the atoms in our body will be replaced. Since it's a slow, continuous process, our notion of identity stays intact. If, however, someone were to have all (or, say, half) the atoms replaced at once, the question of identity would be a lot harder. Similarly, as people's brains rot away, they maintain their identity. If, however, you replaced my brain right now with my brain in ten years, hardly anyone would call me the same person. This is really just an instantiation (and possible solution) of Theseus' ship.
To be honest, I can't remember my original thought process when I came to this conclusion, so I can't remember my strongest argument. I hope what I've said will suffice.
NotATuring ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:34:30 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I primarily look at it in terms of the concept of death and consciousness rather than of identity. Mainly be cause identity of a human is largely arbitrary or at least subjective. For example, does what I am include my arm? Yes, until I lose my arm. Does it include my temporal lobe? Yes, until I lose my temporal lobe.
I further consider it in terms of mind uploading. Many people consider "mind uploading" to not be true immortality because your biological self will still die. And I posit that there is no meaningful difference for the "self" continuing and not continuing to live in the first place.
The you of ten seconds ago being terminated isn't effected, and there's no meaningful difference between your biological mind continuing to exist and a copy of your biological mind continuing to exist because your biological mind is just a copy of your mind passed along the vector of time.
I will say I'm not defending this as iron clad, there are other ideas that can make it seem strange.
For example, if you have two machines running exactly the same simulation with the same minds in it, and they simulate the same things at the same time, and you turn off one of the machines, what does that imply? My thoughts on the matter would seem to indicate that death only effects beings that 'would have been' but not for the inability to make a copy of their prior selves in the next time slice. But yet in this two simulations example the versions of themselves that would have been will be and will not be so has an evil occurred here or not?
Quelklef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:47:28 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm basically on board until the last paragraph. I can't really follow your example. Can you elaborate?
Also, you seem to be talking about time as a discrete idea. I don't think this is necessarily true. I don't think it invalidates your argument, but I still think it's important to consider that time may be discrete but also may be continuous.
LockmanCapulet ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 07:46:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think the flaw in this logic is stating that "younger you is dead because he doesn't exist in the future". He isn't dead. He became you. Why would that inherently be death?
NotATuring ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:41:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is death of the mind. The mind of younger you doesn't exist anymore. It is not the mind of your future or present self. Whether your body dies 10 years from the present or right this moment past you is unaffected.
Sub-Zero96 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:31:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why do you need the time travel? If i understand correctly you are saying that young mind is dead because it doesnt exist any more. But that is "normal" because every day we change a bit, and over time that adds up.
So if you go way back, for example when you were 3 years old, you could say that that personality is dead because every single thing about it changed by this point. And then by the time you were 7 for example, you learned some basic things that you feel are true to this day and will never change. So all of your versions (like programs that update) before certain age are dead because every single thing about them changed.
So yes, for me this situation is the same as the problem of "replacing all parts of something" and i think that if you do that, then that thing is dead, it doesnt exist any more.
NotATuring ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:54:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yea, it's like the transport problem in star trek. People think it's a problem because they think "oh no that person died" because their consciousness was halted. But in reality there's no difference between using a transporter and a moment passing in time.
Sub-Zero96 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:26:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hm never thought about connecting those 2 things together. So i guess the transporter is just a much faster version of this "problem". You change in an instant something that would take a lot of time. And i guess thats why people see it as a problem. When its slow and constantly happening you dont really notice it but when it happens instantly...like aging i guess.
m0dulate ยท 74 points ยท Posted at 17:46:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why does anything exist at all?
niceblyat ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 21:13:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That question also bothers my mind a lot and I canโt even find any theories out there.
efie ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 21:29:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A better question: why not?
limitlessend ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 00:51:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This physically hurts
The_Running_Free ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 04:05:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And does it still exist if we or no other intelligence is around to observe it?
Quelklef ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:25:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was gonna ask this to OC.
I think it's a possibly good explanation. Perhaps causality only exists within our universe, so the system without was able to produce it spontaneously.
Sir_Troglodyte ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:30:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is really good, I've never heard about this reasoning. From now on, this will be my go-to explanation for the existence of this universe. Thanks. :)
Quelklef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:33:54 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you, and you're welcome! :]
sheabutterglide ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:00:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But why does causality exists within anything?
Quelklef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:23:59 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A better question: why not?
Actually, though: The Super-Universe I have proposed would allow it to happen since, being free from causality, it is able to do anything without reason. Thus, it could produce our Universe, which has causality, without reason.
TheReinsofFullnight ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 00:30:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Started thinking about this when someone mentioned what happens if you reach the end of the expanding universe. It made me think of the Big Bang and why that even happened. Why is there anything at all? Shouldnโt there just be nothing?
deluxejoe ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:39:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If there was nothing, there would be no way for this question to exist. But because we exist, there is something, therefore, there shouldn't be nothing. Nothing, by definition, cannot exist because there is something.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:31:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They're asking why there is something instead of nothing.
JargonR3D ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:48:43 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's stuff... For fun.... Who's fun? Nobody knows!
LmnPrty ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 21:51:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everything exists so we can post videos of cats being afraid of vegetables.
C137_Rick_Sanchez ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:22:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oddly enough, that's as valid a theory as just about any other.
From_31st_century ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:03:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because it would be right bloody boring if it didn't
droogans ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:02:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A better question is how could nothing ever be? Something can't emerge from nothing, obviously, and nothing cannot, by its own definition, exist. The only other option is something, which makes sense since we exist.
It's not so much the inclusion of existence that's incredible to me, but rather the absence of nothing. You can't have something that can not exist in the universe -- if you could, it would exist, even as a concept.
Typhoonjig ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:26:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Something can't emerge from nothing"
Hold on, we don't even know for this point, it may be possible in a flat universe.
C137_Rick_Sanchez ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:15:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's an unanswerable question, and is often simply referred to as "The Question". It will plague every conscious being for all time, until the heat death of the universe, in EVERY universe that ever has or ever will exist.
The problem is that the question itself is a moving goal post, and it will always move. A long time ago, the question could have been worded as "what created the stars and the planets" ... and we answered that.
So the goal post moves and "why is there something rather than nothing" becomes a NEW question.
We can maybe answer the questions "What created our universe", "What cause the big bang", and so on. But every time we do, the goal post of "The Question" moves further back.
It's just like a child asking "why?" over and over. No matter how many levels of "why?" you answer, the child just keeps asking "why?" after each explanation.
Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe some intelligent species in some universe at some time will finally get to the absolute bottom of the chain, but I doubt it. And the odds that it will be humanity that does so are pretty damned slim.
And, as another comment in this chain said, it's also possible that we are looking at the question all wrong because of our one-directional understanding of causality. There are plenty of theories out there which regard causality as bi-directional in time, so it's possible that something exists because something exists (if that makes sense). Causality could just as easily be the case that events in the future cause events in the past, or something like that.
Or it could be the case that causality as we know it entirely is simply a function of our particular universe with it's particular laws of physics, and that the greater "multiverse" or whatever you want to call it, does not rely on causality in any way to trigger events. The question of "why" such a multiverse exists, or "why" it spawns universes (like our own) could be a completely invalid question. "Why" may have no meaning in that kind of landscape.
Typhoonjig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:25:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It may even don't need a reason and just be.
TitaniumDragon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:35:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For you to wonder about existence, you must exist.
There's no why to it; it is just a rephrasing of the self-indication assumption. If you didn't exist, you couldn't wonder about why you existed; only extant observers wonder about their existence.
theCumCatcher ยท 174 points ยท Posted at 17:50:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Kind of a cross between philosophy and physics:
If you leave enough hydrogen for long enough, it'll begin to wonder why it is there
Just_an_AMA_noob ยท 109 points ยท Posted at 19:07:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To explain it a different way (at least according to my interpretation). If you leave a comically large amount of hydrogen in a single place, it will undergo nuclear fusion and become a star. That star becomes a supernova and spreads cosmic dust throughout space. Cosmic dust eventually becomes planets, one of those planets eventually develops life, one of those organisms eventually becomes intelligent and one of those intelligent organisms eventually becomes philosophicaly inclined to ask why itโs here.
theCumCatcher ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:55:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
sorta....
this is where it differs.
the entire universe started out as a stupidly large cloud of hydrogen gas once it cooled enough for atoms to form.
Im talking about the whole universe, not just one star.
droogans ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:47:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
HealthyBad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:08:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think that's quite how the big bang went.
Tons of energy erupts from a point, develops into quarks and then sub-atomic particles in a stupidly hot plasma soup, still rapidly rocketing outwards, and once it cools down enough to become Hydrogen, it will begin making systems of stars and what not.
A comically large amount of hydrogen somewhere would create a black hole
shy_dow90 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:48:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Relevant XKCD
jeremeezystreet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:57:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And perhaps also catch cum
mtutty ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:06:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like Douglas Adams.
rkm7878 ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 02:00:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Life. Iโm actually here. Sitting in my recliner typing this message sitting on top of a planet that is spinning and hurling through a seemingly infinite space. As I sit in my comfortable home wars are raging. People are killing and being killed. There are man made rules that I must follow to avoid being placed into a prison. People are starving and others are paying a fortune for a meal at a fine restaurant. Life is interesting.
[deleted] ยท 75 points ยท Posted at 22:05:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everything either is or isn't a potato.
spacemanspiff30 ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 03:08:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What the fuck is a potato?
bless_ure_harte ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 05:04:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You will not date my daughter if you don't believe in potatoes you bastard
sheabutterglide ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:03:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's just another potato.
Sleezaya ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:45:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hmm. Tastes weird.
Sheevy_Boi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:13:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everything isn't a potato
JargonR3D ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:49:59 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Haha, nice.
IS WHAT THEY SHOULD'VE SAID, BUT NOOO, THEY HAD TO MAKE IT AWKWARD!
Serundeng ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:01:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not hotdog
gavmo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:18:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
fuck
Pielo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:48:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
*hotdog
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:34:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is potato soup a potato? Are the roots of a potato a potato? Is a forgotten smushed french fry under your car seat a potato?
tededit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:01:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everything is potato, whether "a" potato or "not a" potato. Just two different types of potato.
K_Z_513 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:43:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What about a half carrot half potato hybrid?
HempLemon ยท 63 points ยท Posted at 20:54:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This'll get buried, but the idea that the death penalty is THE MOST premeditated form of murder.
AudacityOfKappa ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 04:14:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Death penalty is as much murder as taxation is theft.
megotlice ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:58:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You could allways say fuck it and go live in the woods. You can't allways control what the law says demand death.
SuperMohrenkopf ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 09:48:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The "go live in the woods" is a fallacy. You can always apply that to either side.
megotlice ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:02:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think its easier to escape a taxation system than a death penalty.
obscureferences ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 03:39:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Murder is defined as being unlawful. The death penalty, where applied, is not.
hobbit-boy101 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:44:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Muckduck
shdwrnr ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:05:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Murder is taking a human life unlawfully and with intent to kill. A legally ordered execution is lawful. So long as the process is sound and the steps are correct, the justness or righteousness of the act are immaterial.
A properly executed death penalty cannot be murder.
ajmeb53 ยท 108 points ยท Posted at 15:28:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
immmm_at_work ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 20:59:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
what are you quoting?
tededit ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:49:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A quote.
(In this thread, my answer makes sense.)
EEVEELUVR ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:03:42 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Feelings of emotion" lol
[deleted] ยท -13 points ยท Posted at 23:56:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:29:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You must be fun at parties.
Alpha_Meta_man ยท 256 points ยท Posted at 13:57:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It don't always be like this, but it do
berkdrums ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 17:27:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Username checks out
NickReynders ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 21:13:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
**it is
bepseh ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 21:00:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I used to do drugs....
toothless_budgie ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:29:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The most under rated comment here. The actual Gamble quote, I hope/assume intentionally misquoted is 'They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
Nocturnalshadow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:34:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They think it donโt be like it is, but it do
downvote_allmy_posts ยท 265 points ยท Posted at 13:20:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the human brain named itself.
[deleted] ยท 345 points ยท Posted at 16:01:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Zondatastic ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 20:49:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn. Iโve heard the โnamed itselfโ, but this oneโs even better.
immmm_at_work ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:01:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
*Queue screeching violins
Smashgunner ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:47:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
damn what an egotistical cunt.
trollcitybandit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:20:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The brain may be biased, but also makes a lot of good points.
Quixotic_Ignoramus ยท 53 points ยท Posted at 16:10:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's the only organ in the human body that named itself.
AppalachianViking ยท 116 points ยท Posted at 16:54:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno my stomach has named itself "gurlgle."
BrokenStar412 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:50:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My stomach is also a Pokemon.
Royskatt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:47:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My stomach literally just did that as I read this. I think it has gained consciousness.
JustAnotherTake ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 13:34:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Excellent!
TinierRumble449 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:51:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I got this in a pub quiz once. "What is the only part of the human body that named itself?"
I put 'the lips'. I still think I should have got that point.
seemypinky ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:46:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would have named myself something cooler like brainzilla
grazer63 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:40:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Brainy McBrainface
wordsworths_bitch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:17:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
and hands wash themselves, feet walk themselves. what's new?
my real clincher is that the brain wonders how it works, and doesn't have a fucking clue.
thr33pwood ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:44:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not mine and yours though.
metagloria ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:12:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like the showerthought version "Given enough time, hydrogen begins to wonder where it came from."
gaslightlinux ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:55:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Given enough time hyrodgen starts to contemplate it's own existence.
[deleted] ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 01:49:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Typhoonjig ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 10:55:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I once heard "If you wonder what blind people see, try to look behind your head without moving it."
Smashgunner ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:52:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
error sight not found. Missing file "C:/ProgramFilesx86/Senses/Sight/360Vision.sgt"
Opalstar54 ยท 52 points ยท Posted at 18:39:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That you will literally never know what someone else perceived. They can never show you their perception. For example I only know what I see as red but what your notice as red could look different and I would never know.
Mindfullmatter ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:03:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
While I agree, we can tell we see colour very similarly as we agree on matching/ non matching colours. These colours can be very specific.
Opalstar54 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:49:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True we do agree on matching colors but say someone was colorblind and didnโt know it. You both look at a stop sign and agree that itโs red although red for him is really green and heโs been associating green as red for so long that thatโs what he perceives as red. So just because you agree, it doesnโt make your perception equal.
CouldBeMyLastPost ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:18:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well I associate what I perceive as "Red" as an alarming and more powerful color, while what I perceive as "Lavender" or "Sky Blue" is calm and quiet. Does your perception of that align with mine?
Hysterical_Realist ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 19:46:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
All of politics, every single political debate that anybody has ever had, can be boiled down to two simple questions:
Where do we draw the line between individual rights and collective responsibility?
For the portion we decide is collective, how does that get enforced?
Oksbad ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:42:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In a sane and more idealistic world, perhaps.
"What should be done about global warming?" or "How much should the government tax?" for example, fit your criteria.
"Is global warming a Chinese hoax?" or "Was Obama born in Kenya?" do not.
Hysterical_Realist ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:06:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Those aren't questions of politics, though. Those are questions of reality.
LockmanCapulet ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:53:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's arguable whether those count as politics though XD But I fully understand what you're saying.
The_Giant_Moustache ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 21:31:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are a story you tell yourself.
I love reading books on philosophy, sociology, biology, etc. for fun. I won't claim to understand all of it, but I get general ideas. And over the past 6ish months one thing that's bugged me is the consciousness and perception. I find the topic of what reality is super interesting and so I've been trying to throw together a theory of reality - for my own personal interest, just to see if I can make sense of it for myself. Anyway, I've broken it down into 3 basic statements:
Causality creates Identity, Identity creates Perception, Perception creates Reality
It's something I come back to every coupe of weeks and it drives me to wanna keep reading more! I'd love any book, or documentary recommendations, or even any input. Haven't really shared this with anyone
liluglydude_0 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:39:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would revise that to be: Causality creates False Identity False Identity creates False Perception False Perception precipitates False Reality
Send_Me_Back_To_Work ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:00:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think perception is more important than reality. (What even is reality?) If I tell you that I am from Texas and have always worn a cowboy hat for all the years you have known me, that might as well be reality if you never find out.
megotlice ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:10:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not directly related but it reinforced, among other things, my beliefs on this very topic. It's my favourite documentary because it changed my perception of people and it made me a more productive, motivated and kinder person. I never believed in free will, not really, but this documentary put it in so understandable terms that everything became clearer after seeing it.
Everything is a Remix
If you haven't seen it before I hope you enjoy it.
Edit: I'm
stealingcopying that line about causality for future use.The_Giant_Moustache ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:27:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That was so fucking good, thanks for sharing!
Hmbuilder ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 19:51:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can god kill himself? I forgot the philosopher (sorry professor) but it basically says if god can kill himself then he isnโt god because god shouldnโt be able to die, but if I god canโt kill himself then he isnโt god because god should be able to kill anything.
AudacityOfKappa ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 04:11:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, the good old omnipotence "paradox". God can't exist because he can't be bald. If he could be bald then he couldn't be a perfect being cause to be perfect you need glorious hair.
xcelleration ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 07:22:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God isn't limited to your mortal ways of perfection. God can look fabulous either way!
Detach50 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:03:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Says who!?
Aperture_T ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:23:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can God create a burrito so hot that he can't eat it?
Sub-Zero96 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:45:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Something that doesnt involve killing the God (and invoking the rage of your believing collocutor):
Can the God create a stone that he cant lift? If the answer is no then he isnt omnipotent, and if the answer is yes then there is something he cant do so again not omnipotent.
Sheevy_Boi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:24:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The same response as to the original question, God cannot do contradictions. He cannot make a square circle, because by nature a circle us not square. The same applies to making a rock that he cannot lift
Sheevy_Boi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:22:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God by nature can not do everything. He cannot create a square circle because by nature a circle is not square. It is a contradiction. By nature God cannot die. This means that a dead God is a contradiction. Therefore it is not a contradiction that he cannot kill himself.
krutch1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:27:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does that mean then that God is subject to natural law?
Sheevy_Boi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:17:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The only thing he can not do is male a contradiction.
Hmbuilder ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:38:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wow! Thank you so much for that take on it!
Sheevy_Boi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:16:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you for the question
Sheevy_Boi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:26:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God by nature is all good. Therefore he could not make or do something bad. Killing himself would be bad, therefore he couldn't do it. This means that it is not a contradiction that he cannot do it
Explain_like_Im_Civ5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:40:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The problem with this is it assumes god is a physical being.
CFCkyle ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:13:02 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I heard it as can he create a rock even he can't lift. If he can't create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it he isn't omnipotent because there's something he can't do, but if he can create a rock he can't lift he still isn't omnipotent because he can't lift it.
JargonR3D ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:53:39 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But does god want to, is the question...
inckorrect ยท 423 points ยท Posted at 13:28:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If itโs theoretically possible to simulate a world so you canโt differentiate it from the real one (and it is. Theoretically.) then itโs possible to simulate 1 billion worlds.
If itโs possible to simulate 1 billion worlds then the chances that we are living in the real one are slim to none.
clutchheimer ยท 326 points ยท Posted at 16:30:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This sounds true, but actually isn't. It relies on the idea that all of those are equally likely, and no evidence suggests that it is.
Aerolfos ยท 139 points ยท Posted at 18:36:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There could also be 999 billion real universes for all anyone knows.
clutchheimer ยท 50 points ยท Posted at 18:49:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Another strong point.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:23:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, since we're going all speculation here, why not just add that there could be infinity amount of either.
In the end, does it matter? If we are in a simulation, we can't do much about it. I'd rather just live my life happy I'm me and I can experience something, even if it isn't "real". If we are just a simulation, I'm glad it's one where love exists, where you can make friends, where amazing and beautiful things can and do happen. It's cheesy, but you can't deny that that is pretty cool in itself.
The_Godlike_Zeus ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:51:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It doesn't matter, but it's interesting to think about nonetheless. And yes, even if we are in a simulation we are completely real.
Knever ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:22:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, at least you are. All of the rest of us are just computer programs. So, to answer that question in the back of your mind: No, other people don't masturbate as much as you, since you're the only real person here!
Smashgunner ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:49:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
at what point does something become 'real' what defines it?
The_Godlike_Zeus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:01:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know the definition of 'real' or if there is a good one, but I'm using the intuitive sense that humans associate with the word 'real'.
NotATuring ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:40:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's also the issue of computational power and storing information. The universe(s) closer to reality than our own would either need a way of storing infinite information, or have matter that can store much denser information than our own universe to be practical.
As someone once put it "what is the minimum amount of matter that you would need to perfectly simulate an electron? An electron" And by extension the minimum amount of universe you would need in order to simulate a universe (completely) would be a universe.
Of course it is possible to approximate things so I suppose it is possible our "planet" is a simulation and so our "observed" universe could also be a simulation.
And as for storing infinite information, I do not know if that is possible, but what little I do know of physics makes me believe it is not possible.
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:53:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Agreed. Even just simulating the observable universe around everything who can perceive stuff is daunting and nigh impossible.
bepseh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:56:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes vagina.
Detach50 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:17:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It could be that each universe is just another simulation. Just like swinging the pendulum of one of those nifty sand art doohickies never produces the exact same results, clicking go on multiple simulations/universes never produces the exact same results. Round and round we go!
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:24:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
clutchheimer ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:48:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, I just wrote this in response to another posting talking about this exact thing. Whether or not a simulation exists, or that we are living in a simulation, is not related to how many simulations there are. In other words, the chance of living in a simulation if there is one simulation is the same as if there are a googolplex of simulations. No matter how many simulations you imagine, it doesn't reduce the likelihood that we are living actual reality and not a simulation.
Detach50 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:28:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But what if "actual reality" is just a simulation, and never existed in the first place?
Either way, if one assumes we are in "actual reality", or that we are a simulation, does either assumption make oneself less "real"? Does it affect one's existence? Does this fall back on "I think therefore I am"? It doesn't matter if this is all real or fake, its the reality we are in. Just like touching fake boobs; they sure feel real to me!
PointyOintment ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:23:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can you show your math?
IllTearOutYour0ptics ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:28:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If there are infinite realities, wouldn't it be more likely to have your consciousness form within one of the infinite human bodies, rather than in one of 7 billion on earth?
Basically, aren't you assuming consciousness forms in a non-random way? If it were random, it would have been equally likely for my mind to "spawn," in your body as it was to "spawn," in me.
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:39:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If there are infinite realities, then sure. But that is by no means proven. It sure is possible.
FadeCrimson ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:38:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is my main issue with a lot of grandiose theories like this. They rely on a VERY specific set of assumptions that in no way should just be assumed to be correct.
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:55:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, the necessary preconditions are what sink this one. They seem somewhat reasonable on the surface, but become less and less likely the more they are examined.
bezdeth ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:47:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is quite interesting. What would effect the chance that we are in a real/simulated one which would mean the others are more/less likely?
clutchheimer ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:33:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One of the main things that needs to be grasped is the concept of point of view. For you to be in a simulated reality, some assumptions must be true. For you to be part of a simulated reality farm, more assumptions must be true. This reduces the likelihood of the possibility.
The problem is that it seems less likely because you are thinking of if I am standing outside a room and looking in at a billion simulated realities and one real one, surely the chance of choosing the actual reality must be smaller. That is true, but it isn't what we are talking about. Whether or not you exist in a simulated reality is not an external choice.
Immortal_Azrael ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:57:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My problem with this theory is that it relies too much on assumptions. It assumes that any civilization capable of creating such a simulation will unquestionably do so. Now we could say that we as humans would definitely do so but the advanced civilization capable of creating the simulation may not be human and we really can't say what an alien civilization will or won't do because they may not think anything like us. We can't assume that human thoughts and behaviors universally apply to all intelligent life.
Detach50 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:53:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can I introduce you to a game called Sid Meier's Civiliazation? It's a strategy game where you control a world simulation to develop sciences and agriculture, and civilizations. You get to take your simulation through history from early Hunter gatherers to, most recently, space colonization. Sound familiar?
The assumption that the advanced civilization to create the simulation may or may not think anything like us, is interesting. The probability of humanity being the only intelegent species in the universe is unlikely, and surely a waste of space. So would the probability of there being just two, three, or four intelegent species in the universe. However many there are or might be, humanity cannot be the only one to enjoy games and simulations. All life has similarities, and I would venture that if there are other forms of life in the universe, then there are multiple forms of life, and at least one of those is similar to humanity in that they just might have their own, more advance version of Sid Meier's Civilization that we are living in right now.
Yes, it's all based on assumptions, but it's a fun thought experiment. Besides, it's all just "theories," right?
clutchheimer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:23:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it is specious to think even we as humans would do it if we could. Who knows how great the cost would be? We could feed and clothe everyone in the world comfortably and all live in harmony, but there is no freakin way we will. The relationship between what humans can do and what they actually will do is nowhere close to one to one.
Farmer771122 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:13:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
At least there's no such evidence in our universe. Would YOU put that kind of evidence in one of your simulated universes? :-P
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:14:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Touche.
Detach50 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:37:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe that evidence IS here in our simulation, we just can't see it. Perhaps we are three dimensional beings represented in a 4 dimensional world. All the evidence to give away our simulated reality is in the 4 dimension. In the same way computer graphics are 3D objects represented on a 2D screen, our reality is a 4d simulation represented in a 3D world.
Limetime5 ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 16:30:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm interested in simulation theory, but does anyone really have an answer as to how infinite numbers like pi can be present in a simulation?
figsbar ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 17:59:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Depends how you mean "present".
As it is, pi in its exact form doesn't exist in this universe.
There are no two things that exist in this world that has a ratio of exactly pi.
This is due to two things.
"Perfect circles" don't exist in reality.
Even if they did we cannot measure them "perfectly"
People keep bringing it up as an argument for why this can't be a simulation but I have no idea why.
pahein-kae ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 19:08:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Math is a description of the world; I think people understand it to be the definition of the world. And yes, there are physical rules to be had, but bugger if we know how accurate our approximations of them are are across all conditions.
madcuzimflagrant ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 17:22:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How can they be present in our reality? (Assuming that we aren't in a simulation)
[deleted] ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 17:26:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, our own universe has a limit on how much information can be stored in it. If each digit could be stored on some amount of atoms, then the total number of atoms in the universe is a limiting factor in how far we could calculate the value of pi.
[deleted] ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 18:34:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's important to note that the lack of an ability to calculate the decimal expansion of pi says nothing about it's mathematical existence, at least for those of us who are not constructivists.
Coroxn ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:23:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And those of us who are constructivists don't have the mental wherewithal to consider transcendental numbers anyhow.
Fucking constructivists.
zecchinoroni ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:31:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But you don't need atoms for numbers to exist. They are a theoretical concept.
OSUfan88 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:59:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whoa...
madcuzimflagrant ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:50:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying pi is not an infinite number?
pahein-kae ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:06:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What we label as "pi" exists as a concept. It's not like numbers are anything but a way of describing the stuff that exists. Take a look at the "discovering" vs. "inventing" math debate. The simulation doesn't absolutely need pi, so far as I'm aware. It'd just need something like the equation for a circle.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:06:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Infinity goes forever, but you could never write it all down. Is it still infinite?
Obligatius ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:23:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pi is not an infinite number. Pi is a ratio that cannot be expressed in decimal form with a finite number of digits. You have to be very careful with the use/application of the word infinite, and irrational numbers are not infinite numbers.
RynoSauce ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:35:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's an infinite number as far as we can predict. That's the thing about infinity, is that you don't know how far it actually goes.
So it is infinite, by default, because we cannot prove it is finite.
Krossfireo ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 19:14:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, Pi is a transcendental number. There is a limit to the number of digits we could compute, but we do know it actually goes forever
yours_untruly ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 19:50:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
From a person that knows absolutely nothing about math, it seems logical that Pi is actually infinite, since it is based on an equation, and we see all possibilities within it (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) that will be divided, so this just keeps on happening, this will never change, so it is infinite in that sense, /r/understanditlikeimfive
automated_bot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:32:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if the purpose of our universe is to store values like pi? What if it's just a big hard drive?
anne-so ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:25:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
given it's in an accelerated expansion, how could you affirm that with certitude
horsebag ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:41:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
pi is no more infinite than any other number. 3 isn't just 3, it's 3.00000000... pi's eternal randomness is just an artifact of how we choose to encode numbers. if instead of base 10 we used base pi, pi would be 1 and regular numbers would probably all be infinitely random
horsebag ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:42:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
it did blow my mind too when I first realized pi is just a number. in the same way you can have two and a half sandwiches, you can have pi sandwiches
EighthScofflaw ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:02:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
my man, wait til you hear about e
horsebag ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:25:59 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
have you ever done math.... on e?
KarmicFedex ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:38:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Mmm... pie sandwiches
GaloombaNotGoomba ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:50:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You mean transcendental numbers? Well it's math, it's the same whether it's in a simulation or not. 4*(1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...) will always be pi (and so would Chudnovsky's formula and others) and that's pretty obviously the same number anywhere because all the numbers in the formula are constant.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:31:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a common misconception, pi is not infinite. In fact, it is between 3 and 4. If you are referring to the description of pi in base 10, that is independent of the existence of pi, since an equivalent definition depends only on the ratio of the circumference of a circle with it's radius, and I'm sure we can both agree that any decent simulation must contain a notion of circles, even if abstract.
There is also an important distinction about what a number is, from a non-platonist point of view, pi is nothing more than an abstract concept, and the same goes for 3, sqrt(2) or 15/17. They are constructed to model things we find interesting (properties of circles, quantity, proportion, euclidean geometry, etc.) but that does not mean that they are 'present' in reality, if we can even assign an objective meaning to what that would be.
Kahzgul ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:27:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can represent pi as a formula rather than a number, and thus store it as that formula. When you need the raw number, you don't need the whole (infinite) thing, but rather only need it down to a specific level of significant digits. even if you're writing out the first fifteen quadrillion digits of pi, that's basically nothing compared to infinity.
zecchinoroni ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:31:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why wouldn't it be able to?
ayyeeeeeelmao ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:22:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are no perfect circles in the universe so we don't have to worry about that
DeedTheInky ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:32:18 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe it's procedural. The everytime we calculate it to a new highest point it just adds more stuff. :)
sierraescape ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:18:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pi isnโt infinite. In a number system of base pi, it is represented as 10. We just canโt represent it with our number system.
DoesntGetWhatIronyIs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:40:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Happy cakeday
catfroman ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:18:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean it's only infinite in theory. The numbers are only revealed so far as we calculate them and the amount we have calculated will always be finite. Whatever the next number in the sequence is, doesn't matter because we haven't calculated it yet.
SaturdayforaSunday ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 18:10:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
theoretically if one could accurately simulate our universe with all particles and forces using what we know now as a reference point, then it would be possible to predict the future by advancing the simulation ahead of our current time. This is effectively impossible though.
joehx ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 20:24:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
no it wouldn't. because any simulation would end up having to simulate itself, forming a kind of infinite loop
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:51:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:16:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That one met his end in the early 19th century when entropy was discovered.
Not to speak of the more recent theories that seem to imply that some elements of our universe are entirely random at the most basic level.
cheezecake2000 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:23:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That would last for a very short amount of time. Millionths of seconds if not more or less. Imagine it like for every decition you make it changes the next outcome.
As soon as one atom interacted with another it eould branch off a new universe where they didnt interact and one that they did. Exponentially growning every time they collided
PointyOintment ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:25:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A computer capable of simulating our universe at anywhere near real-time speed, let alone faster (to do predictions) would not fit in our universe. Also, it existing in our universe would change the state of our universe such that it would no longer be represented by the simulation.
gaslightlinux ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:55:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your phrasing of this is slightly incorrect. It's not that you could simulate a billion worlds, but that there would be a chain of world simulating world simulating world, and in that your chance of being in the original is slim.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:10:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
gaslightlinux ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:42:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, the map can't be the territory.
Jarte ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:00:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One problem is whether it is possible the human mind needs a perfect simulation. If not then causation would not necessarily hold in a simulated reality, thus logic is unreasonable and unnecessary. Therefore, the claim(we exist in a simulation) does not necessarily follow. Essentially, if we conclude humans can have flawed logic and can still operate with flawed deductions, a flawed simulation is highly likely. A flaw in reality would necessarily effect the totality of reality, therefore logic is not true in a simulation; only in Reality could the claim of simulation even be made and held as logically possible, therefore we must exist in Reality.
DrDudeManJones ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:36:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That would mean there is a higher power.
inckorrect ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:34:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And his name is Morpheus
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:41:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Like Pi, but squared
Patergia ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 18:07:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Of course there is a higher power, the question is how much that higher power cares about us.
Creabhain ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:47:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The way I heard it was that a perfectly simulated world would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which would eventually want to simulate a world which would contain intelligent life which , etc
expresidentmasks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:30:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well now we can get into the meanings of the word possible.
The_Godlike_Zeus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:49:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I came up with an interesting side thought to that. If it turns out we are in a simulation, then the universe can't be infinite, because it would be impossible to create an infinitely big simulated world. Or the other way around: if we somehow discover that the universe really is infinite, then we can't be in a simulation.
obscureferences ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:22:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've made an infinitely big simulated world before. Just add scrolling edges.
MaydayImGoingDown ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:12:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I too enjoy Westworld.
Towerss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:15:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The only way we can be simulated is if the universe where the simulation computer exists has much, much, much smaller elementary particles than us. The most efficient simulation possible is where 1 atom (or electron) in the computer simulates another atom perfectly. Obviously you'd in practice need more space than this. Basically you'd need a machine at least as large as the universe to simulate it. You might ask "what if everything is hollow or a projection?" Well when we look at things far away, the physics act identical to how you'd expect it to act if all atoms there were simulated, and even if it's "rendered" only when inspecting it, the computer would have to keep track of the physics somehow when we're not inspecting so that it looks like it has run in real time when we look at it again. In practice it requires the same amount of processing space as simulating the entire universe.
blizzardplus ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:47:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You don't have to simulate everything down to the atom though, it just has to be "close enough" to fool an observer.
An observer that is a product of the simulated universe has no reference point other than the simulation. In other words maybe our universe doesn't make sense/follow rules perfectly but it's all we know.
Towerss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:06:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But we can observe the indirect effects of those small things, if it can simulate that then it is as if it simulated those small things all along. There are things about our universe that has to be true even in universes that don't abide by our physics.
WhiteRaven42 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:46:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It can't be "none", there must be something that exists to conduct the simulation. That represents a real universe and it's possible to be in it.
Furthermore, it must elect to simulate a universe (or a consciousness) and then elect to simulate this exact configuration with this exact result.
The chances of THAT happening are infinitely slim too, right?
humodx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:54:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The probability of being at a specific place in the universe is infinitesimally small, so the chance of me being on planet Earth is ~0.
The_Great_Rogelio ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:00:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The situation does not have any empirical evidence to be tested against, it isnโt a falsifiable or verifiable (Karl popper, Vienna circle ideas - respectively). And really, as a theoretical idea, it comes down to a matter of semantics, and as Wittgenstein stated in the Tractatus: ~ โthat of which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silenceโ ... or words to that effect.
KeijyMaeda ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:04:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But, if the simulated world cannot be differentiated from the real world, then what about it makes it less real?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:28:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Isn't there a limit to computational power? It's not like we can use a computer to simulate two computers, and use the results of the two computers to effectively double CPU power.
KPC51 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:01:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That implies there is only one "real" world
edruler99 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:54:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Kurzgesagt did a really interesting video on this topic.
https://youtu.be/tlTKTTt47WE
bverezub ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 20:41:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I could be the only actual โhumanโ. From my perspective, Iโm the only one that exists. You might be able to pass all the tests that make you โhumanโ, but you canโt and never will be able to prove that there is anything behind those eyes.
GeekIsBigZ ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:51:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How do I know that there is something behind your eyes r/bverezub ? Hmmmmm?
bverezub ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:25:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also, I have a sub now?
GeekIsBigZ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:33:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No youโre just dealing with an inexperienced reddit user lol....
Sike Iโm actually a simulated human inside your consciousness and this is just the shit that Iโm programmed to say to make you think that everyone around you is also experiencing consciousness when in reality you are alone.
Errr I mean...
bverezub ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:21:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm also programmed to say this to you
Beep bop robot noise am real human
GeekIsBigZ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:41:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thatโs exactly what a real human would say...
But wait, youโre programmed to say exactly what a real human would say...
Shit
tededit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:36:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but look at what it says in that sub: "There doesn't seem to be anything here."
GeekIsBigZ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:16:29 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Illuminate confirmed
bverezub ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:24:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
:thinking:
HillofJustice ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:37:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Cut out the eyes and take a look.
bverezub ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:00:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs an interesting plan, but slightly unethical
CaptainMcAnus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:46:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hello, it's me. A real human. I exist. You do not.
beep
Sheevy_Boi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:29:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Trust me, I exist.
bverezub ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:50:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, do I exist?
Sheevy_Boi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:19:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hey, Vsauce, Michael here and do I really exist?
liluglydude_0 ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 17:33:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nietzscheโs Amor Fati. Basically states that in life one must not simply tolerate the terrible things that happen to him, but love it.
Quelklef ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:29:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But h o w, Nietzsche??
liluglydude_0 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:46:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Loosely, acceptance and contentment with oneโs life in all of its minute details. In a way that one could happily live the same life over and over for all of eternity.
Amor Fati is entangled with his notion of Eternal Recurrence.
Quelklef ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:52:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Eek. Sounds hard.
I'm tired right now. I have work to do. Being tired is a bad feeling, and the work is causing me stress.
What does he say I do? Accept those negative feelings and be at peace with them? Then I still feel bad. I could live a life in which I accept my emotion but still feel awful the whole time; I wouldn't consider that 'replayable'.
If I'm instead supposed to feel good somehow, how? I suppose I could reorient my view on the work I have to do, framing it in a cosmic context so that it, and its consequences, are trivial. But more primal emotions? Hunger? Thirst? Fatigue?
liluglydude_0 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:16:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
While a notion alone doesn't quell something as primal as hunger or thirst, Perception precipitates Action, and then Will, at least according to Ryan Holiday in โThe Obstacle Is The Way.โ Lifeโs obstacles and hardships are inescapable aspects of the human condition, Suffering seems to be inextricable. Further, looking at Camusโ Myth of Sisyphus, it is when Sisyphus acknowledges the futility of his senseless task โand certainty of his fate, he is freed to realize the adburdity of his situation and reach a state of contented acceptance.โ
Quelklef ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:25:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your first sentence seems to be in contrast with the rest of your comment. It seems to imply that the power in us is that we may act towards a goal (of happiness). The rest seems to say that the power is in acceptance, which gives contentment.
Also, I accept that we may reach "contented acceptance". But that is not happiness. In fact, I would argue it's not necessarily a positive emotion at all, just neutral. And the argument, too, seems to then be that we should lower our expectations as much as possible so that we'll never be discontent.
Also, what comes with contentment? Certainly, in my eyes, a loss of aspiration. If I am happy and contented with the world, and my state in it, as is, why would I ever do anything?
Sorry if my thoughts are jumbled or I come off as aggressive. It's pretty late, I have work to do, and I'm not really proofreading.
liluglydude_0 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:41:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue that working towards a goal should come with careful examination of what such a goal is. If my goal is to โbe guy who gets married,โ then there's not much free will left for my identity once i achieve such a thing. But do any of us set a goal as โone thingโ above all others? Maybe for some, but I'd speculate hardly for others.
However, happiness and a search for it is a dangerous game, especially if one has no definition or understanding of why one would search for such a โthingโ as an โultimate/permanent goalโ (especially when any form of it is abound in day-to-day life.) Pain aversion, suffering avoidance, among other reasons for โseeking happinessโ as a permanent state of mind are trite and overused, and better suited for a quick self help read rather than a purpose one could devote a lifetime to. But, happiness is not central to Amor Fati, nor Sisyphus. Happiness wasn't previously mentioned either, so if anything I hope it could contribute something to your argument.
Contentment is never Compromise.
If one has set โhappinessโ (and whatever that means to that person) as a goal and one has achieved such a thing, then surely, there is nothing left to do about anything, at least according to someone that doesn't share a similar goal.
Quelklef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:13:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hm. Because I have trouble following arguments, and I think we have deviated some from the original topic, I am going to enumerate through what you have said, state my interpretation, and respond:
1) One should examine their goals when setting them
I agree. But the way I look at it, it's no so much about considering the consequences as it is about finding what your deepest inner desire is, and going with that.
2) Most people don't have one main goal
I opine1 that everyone does. Everyone wants to feel good (I use 'feeling good' as an analog to your 'happiness', though I prefer 'feeling good' because it is more general and flexible). That's our end-game. All of our actions are done so that we feel good, in one way or another. Even complex and selfless ones.
I eat to satiate my hunger, which makes me feel good. This is simple.
A more complex one: A father slaves away at work in order to support his family. He hates his work, and it depresses him. But he knows that what he is doing is fundamentally good, and this makes him feel good. If he didn't get this final sense of 'right' within him, he wouldn't be so selfless. Examples like this are at the heart of this idea: that even an act as selfless as this is deeply rooted in feeling good (and thus in selfishness. This is the main point of my philosophy as a whole, that all beings are selfish, but is not the main point in relation to our conversation).
And (this is a bit of a tangent) I want to note that I don't mean selfish as a bad or negative word here, just a neutral one. I accept that we are all selfish, and that's okay. But there's selfish like I mean here, and colloquial selfish, which is bad.
1 Truthfully, I'm not 100% sure about this argument, but I want to present it anyway.
1) A search for happiness is a dangerous game
I suppose. But it's what we do. Again, I think that we all strive towards one thing: feeling good.
2) We should have a definition for happiness (or any goal)
I don't think a definition is necessarily. Without one, I can still note what does and doesn't make me feel good, and strive towards feeling good.
3) One cannot devote their lifetime to happiness
But why not? Again, I argue that it's what we all do. Anything more 'profound' that we devote our lives to is just a roundabout way of feeling good. I am a person who wants to feel accomplished. I tend to feel bad when I'm listless, and feel good when I am working and accomplishing things. So, I strive towards working on personal projects much of the time. But note why I'm doing it: to feel good, and to avoid feeling bad.
1) Once you reach your goal, there is nothing else to do.
I agree, but only for what I understand to be Nietzsche-like contentment; that is, unconditional contentment. If you are always content, then you will never be pushed to do anything.
However, I don't think this is true for goals in general. If my goal is to feel good, and I feel good, then I stop working, and I stop feeling as good. So I must continue working to continue feeling good. And, hey, if there is an unbroken period of time of feeling good, I'll take it. I'll lay back and soak it in. I know because I do it frequently: every time I do good work on a project, the accomplishment stays with me for a little while and I'm just that much more content. But the important part is that I had to work for it, differentiating it from Nietzsche-like contentment.
Wow, I just wrote a ton. Hopefully it's all intelligible.
avocadowinner ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 21:39:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not a formal philosophical concept but a sci-fi novel's explanation for the Fermi Paradox:
Dark Forest Theory
The Wikipedia page of the novel with the same name name explains it best:
Quelklef ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:28:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Reminds me of the prisoner's dilemma.
Also, since we now recognize this paradox, doesn't the situation change somewhat? We now see that fighting will eventually lead to our death (there will always be a bigger fish than us1). So, we should choose the only other option and risk peace, hoping that the other civilization came to the same conclusion. We must choose between certain eventual death or possible (if unlikely) peace.
1 Very, very probably
SBorealis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:50:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not even a book person and I want to read this. What's the book called
fuckfinally ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:30:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He's referring to The Dark Forest.
SBorealis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:37:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Alright, thanks
meliorist ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:34:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sir, I am NOT a book person, and youโre refusing to help me, so Iโm going to hang up.
avocadowinner ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:12:51 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Three Body Problem Trilogy
By Liu Cixin
Typhoonjig ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:38:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As long as you believe in said "axioms" :
1 Life having a goal and just not being here, said goal being survival, living things being conscious of this goal and acting purposely for it.
2 Ressources are limited at all, limited in our life expectancy (we'll probably never have to worry about running out of sun) and in quantity compared to the number of individuals.
Then it may some assumptions on how living being works :
They live in competition with each other, which is wrong, studies of animal behavior shows that cooperation is everywhere in nature even between preys and predators.
That we would share the same ressources as "aliens" a thing we don't know.
That said aliens are similar lifeforms or even that they can be considered as "life".
That civilization can achieve space travel before imploding.
That said space travel is relevant in term of ressources consumption and time.
That cooperation isn't possible.
That agressive behaviors were develloped in "aliens" ecosystem.
.....
A shitload of things we don't know.
jmfmb ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 14:03:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no complete definition for all sorts of abstract concepts. The most interesting to me being "intelligence." But it also applies to humor, love, and quality. For that last one, read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
martixy ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:29:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The ultimate form of this is called Gรถdel's incompleteness theorem.
There are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.
voidrex ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:44:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is false, Gรถdels theorem only applies to axiom system that are strong enough to express arithmetics
ReggaeShark22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:34:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This actually ties into an interesting concept I think Nietzsche brought up which asserts ideas can never have clear and distinct definitions just because the multiplicity of itโs possible uses and interpretations over time, THEREFORE the best way to understand these ideas is actually to create a sort of genealogy for their different interpretations. Hereโs an example of that being applied to the concept of liberty.
Shadow_Of_ ยท 99 points ยท Posted at 14:26:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The longer you live the faster time seems to go. That means something that has always existed never feels impatient.
theantinaan ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 21:26:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's also because we experience so many new things when we're young. Memories feel longer and more vivid when they're about new and interesting experiences. As we get older, there's less new stuff for us to experience, especially as we set into a typical "adult routine." That's why time seems to go faster as we age.
ConceptCutthroat ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 21:12:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Vsauce had a pretty neat way of understanding this phenomenon.
Firstly, let's recognize that humans don't have perfect memories and we have to reach a certain age before we can actually retain memories, but let's just agree that convolutes the thought experiment and ignore that.
Now, think about how long one year seems to you. Say you're one year old exactly. That's 100% percent of your life and experiences. Add just one more year, and you're two years old now. One year is now only 50% of your life and experiences. By the time you reach 100 years old, one year is only 1% of your entire life and experiences, which can help explain why time seems to go faster the longer we live.
I probably did a poor job conveying this, so I'll see if I can't find the video in which he talks about it.
Zachattack_5972 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 22:05:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also when you're younger, every experience you have is new and exciting. Eating peas? This is your first time ever eating peas in your whole life, it's important to remember so you know what peas are and stuff like that.
But by the time you're old, you've eaten peas hundreds of times, you no longer need to remember it every time you eat peas. In fact, there's tons of mundane things you do everyday that you can just tune out.
And as you get older, a larger portion of your experiences are no longer important to remember. So like 75% of your life you just delete as soon as it happens, which can also make life seem faster.
xios ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:51:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is because of the relative perception of time.
When you are ten years old, ten years was your entire life. When you're twenty, it was half your life. At thirty, it's one third and so on. The passage of time feels faster because it means less to us as we age.
ChevyChaseIsNice ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:10:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was thinking the other day, what if that feeling is relative not to us but to the universe, what if time was for our parents overall was slower than our overall experience. What if in the year 4000 everything is doubley as fast as now. Although why would we identify childhood as feeling slower than adulthood? Maybe they exist one within the other, both being true. Food for thought
systemadvisory ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:33:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if your mind works like a computer chip, and you have a certain number of "cycles" each day. What if as you get older, your brain works less fast, and you have less processing cycles per day? The day would most definitely seem faster moving to you when you're older...
wordsworths_bitch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:19:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
logarithmic storage.
hilal5ix ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 15:11:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Does this count?
Be advised the following isn't my own content.
"The Egg
By: Andy Weir
You were on your way home when you died.
It was a car accident. Nothing particularly remarkable, but fatal nonetheless. You left behind a wife and two children. It was a painless death. The EMTs tried their best to save you, but to no avail. Your body was so utterly shattered you were better off, trust me.
And thatโs when you met me.
โWhatโฆ what happened?โ You asked. โWhere am I?โ
โYou died,โ I said, matter-of-factly. No point in mincing words.
โThere was aโฆ a truck and it was skiddingโฆโ
โYup,โ I said.
โIโฆ I died?โ
โYup. But donโt feel bad about it. Everyone dies,โ I said.
You looked around. There was nothingness. Just you and me. โWhat is this place?โ You asked. โIs this the afterlife?โ
โMore or less,โ I said.
โAre you god?โ You asked.
โYup,โ I replied. โIโm God.โ
โMy kidsโฆ my wife,โ you said.
โWhat about them?โ
โWill they be all right?โ
โThatโs what I like to see,โ I said. โYou just died and your main concern is for your family. Thatโs good stuff right there.โ
You looked at me with fascination. To you, I didnโt look like God. I just looked like some man. Or possibly a woman. Some vague authority figure, maybe. More of a grammar school teacher than the almighty.
โDonโt worry,โ I said. โTheyโll be fine. Your kids will remember you as perfect in every way. They didnโt have time to grow contempt for you. Your wife will cry on the outside, but will be secretly relieved. To be fair, your marriage was falling apart. If itโs any consolation, sheโll feel very guilty for feeling relieved.โ
โOh,โ you said. โSo what happens now? Do I go to heaven or hell or something?โ
โNeither,โ I said. โYouโll be reincarnated.โ
โAh,โ you said. โSo the Hindus were right,โ
โAll religions are right in their own way,โ I said. โWalk with me.โ
You followed along as we strode through the void. โWhere are we going?โ
โNowhere in particular,โ I said. โItโs just nice to walk while we talk.โ
โSo whatโs the point, then?โ You asked. โWhen I get reborn, Iโll just be a blank slate, right? A baby. So all my experiences and everything I did in this life wonโt matter.โ
โNot so!โ I said. โYou have within you all the knowledge and experiences of all your past lives. You just donโt remember them right now.โ
I stopped walking and took you by the shoulders. โYour soul is more magnificent, beautiful, and gigantic than you can possibly imagine. A human mind can only contain a tiny fraction of what you are. Itโs like sticking your finger in a glass of water to see if itโs hot or cold. You put a tiny part of yourself into the vessel, and when you bring it back out, youโve gained all the experiences it had.
โYouโve been in a human for the last 48 years, so you havenโt stretched out yet and felt the rest of your immense consciousness. If we hung out here for long enough, youโd start remembering everything. But thereโs no point to doing that between each life.โ
โHow many times have I been reincarnated, then?โ
โOh lots. Lots and lots. An in to lots of different lives.โ I said. โThis time around, youโll be a Chinese peasant girl in 540 AD.โ
โWait, what?โ You stammered. โYouโre sending me back in time?โ
โWell, I guess technically. Time, as you know it, only exists in your universe. Things are different where I come from.โ
โWhere you come from?โ You said.
โOh sure,โ I explained โI come from somewhere. Somewhere else. And there are others like me. I know youโll want to know what itโs like there, but honestly you wouldnโt understand.โ
โOh,โ you said, a little let down. โBut wait. If I get reincarnated to other places in time, I could have interacted with myself at some point.โ
โSure. Happens all the time. And with both lives only aware of their own lifespan you donโt even know itโs happening.โ
โSo whatโs the point of it all?โ
โSeriously?โ I asked. โSeriously? Youโre asking me for the meaning of life? Isnโt that a little stereotypical?โ
โWell itโs a reasonable question,โ you persisted.
I looked you in the eye. โThe meaning of life, the reason I made this whole universe, is for you to mature.โ
โYou mean mankind? You want us to mature?โ
โNo, just you. I made this whole universe for you. With each new life you grow and mature and become a larger and greater intellect.โ
โJust me? What about everyone else?โ
โThere is no one else,โ I said. โIn this universe, thereโs just you and me.โ
You stared blankly at me. โBut all the people on earthโฆโ
โAll you. Different incarnations of you.โ
โWait. Iโm everyone!?โ
โNow youโre getting it,โ I said, with a congratulatory slap on the back.
โIโm every human being who ever lived?โ
โOr who will ever live, yes.โ
โIโm Abraham Lincoln?โ
โAnd youโre John Wilkes Booth, too,โ I added.
โIโm Hitler?โ You said, appalled.
โAnd youโre the millions he killed.โ
โIโm Jesus?โ
โAnd youโre everyone who followed him.โ
You fell silent.
โEvery time you victimized someone,โ I said, โyou were victimizing yourself. Every act of kindness youโve done, youโve done to yourself. Every happy and sad moment ever experienced by any human was, or will be, experienced by you.โ
You thought for a long time.
โWhy?โ You asked me. โWhy do all this?โ
โBecause someday, you will become like me. Because thatโs what you are. Youโre one of my kind. Youโre my child.โ
โWhoa,โ you said, incredulous. โYou mean Iโm a god?โ
โNo. Not yet. Youโre a fetus. Youโre still growing. Once youโve lived every human life throughout all time, you will have grown enough to be born.โ
โSo the whole universe,โ you said, โitโs justโฆโ
โAn egg.โ I answered. โNow itโs time for you to move on to your next life.โ
And I sent you on your way.
"
BubbaRWnB ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:12:46 on April 14, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well that was a mind fuck. Thanks.
hilal5ix ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:56:29 on April 16, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It was #8 on my top ten web pages of all time.
just_sayian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:24:23 on April 15, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Holy fuck thats awesome
hilal5ix ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:56:54 on April 16, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
thanks, I wonder if it's the same Andy
JargonR3D ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:08:01 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If I was gonna be mindfucked every time I died I'd opt out like dude.
JargonR3D ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:08:39 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also gives masturbation a whole new meaning.
hilal5ix ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:38:30 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well I'm not the author of it
BartlettMagic ยท 45 points ยท Posted at 17:50:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
in my american philosophy class, Prof. R. Findler, Slippery Rock University, Spring 2002- as an aside while discussing "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God":
"Omnipotence- what does that mean? Doesn't it mean perfection? Isn't god always being touted as perfection? But in the Old Testament, god was angry and vengeful. That doesn't sound perfect to me. And there's a commandment against idolatry- because he's a jealous god. What does a perfect being have to be jealous of?"
i know it's not exactly what OP is asking for, but it was the first time my mind=blown. at that point i ceased being a christian and entered into my agnostic phase. i ended up dropping that class because my whole perception of life and reality was in this cascade-effect sequence of change and i couldn't handle any more philosophy on top of it.
one of the best professors i ever had (in the previous semester i had the same Prof for Ethics. it was an amazing class.)
ZyraReflex ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 22:23:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The thing is that we really have no concept of what goes on in the mind of a God. Morally, there's not necessarily a universal right or wrong (the jury's still out on that, though), so maybe God was just acting amorally, and was simply enforcing and restricting his creations, out of purpose rather than hate or jealousy.
Thursday_Special ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:19:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That is to say if the god we talk about and those who worship isn't actually the devil instead.
like kind of getting back at the real "god" by making it's own creation worship/love/kill for it the devil who was banished by "god"
because afterall why would god tell and teach it's own creation about itself? For me it seems only the devil would benefit from this seeing as so many people have died because of the knowledge and word of "god"
This can also go on to explain why so many different religions exist. If the devil (aka god) spreads and teaches multiple "gods" it causes chaos which in turn means conflict and death. Just look at Islam and it's extreme teaching that there is "only one god".
teaching your creation about yourself seems shady as hell to me as it leaves the lot of them in turn to interpret your words in a multitude of ways unique to each individual which would only cause conflicts of opinion.
Oldmantoesforthumbs ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:48:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The definition of perfection cannot originate from a flawed individual.
This is my understanding: Man is imperfect he/she cannot propose what God does or is for the simple fact that they don't know everything and within that very void of knowledge could possibly contain explanation
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:47:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So there are cases where genocide, and rape of innocents are perfectly acceptable or even that not comminuting genocide is immoral. That's a slippery slope you're on. ..
CptCohort ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:52:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's actually a shit argument though...
DOG-ZILLA ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:01:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your experience is a great testament to idea that if we all just sat and thought a bit more critically about the World around us, itโd be a very different place.
This is why I dislike the idea of religion and โGodโ. It encourages us as human beings to ignore and close off the most powerful thing we know in the Universe; our brains.
PointyOintment ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:45:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't the Christian God explicitly acknowledge the existence of other gods?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:44:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes.
CptCohort ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 07:56:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No.
nevaraon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:52:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then why does he specifically say in the commandments that โYou shalt have no other Gods Before meโ
That sounds like he was saying โyeah there are others out there. But let me catch you with one of those hoes. Just let me.โ God, in my mind, does an angry Latina voice really well.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:49:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
/u/CptCohort is wrong
CptCohort ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:20:49 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, I'm not. Citation and interpretation please.
Sir_Troglodyte ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:22:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That is not about other actual gods, but rather an advice about avoiding addictions. Something along the lines of "Thous shalt not have more important things in your life than God".
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:44:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Except specific other gods are named in the Bible.
AudacityOfKappa ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:19:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I hope you have since rethought about that argument and why it is very weak? Search "omnipotence paradox".
erinthecute ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:28:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Omnipotence means to be all-powerful, not to be perfect. But yes, an omnipotent God could just like, modify human nature to make believing in any other gods impossible. Or any other number of things to avoid all the "problems" humanity supposedly has. Most religious narratives about an all-powerful god are full of holes.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:50:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He's clearly not all powerful though
bby_art_angel666 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:48:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So itโs not the most mind blowing Iโm sure but โthe right to be forgottenโ. Basically when we pass away we have the right to not live forever through digital means, like social media or to perpetually turn up in search engines. A lot of people are against the right to be forgotten because they feel it could lead to a revisionist history of sorts.
I personally just feel itโs such a unique concept that is so specific to our times.
LockmanCapulet ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:49:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The way I see it, people have a right to be forgotten, but it doesn't trump (nor is it trumped by) others' right to remember. If you've impacted someone, you can't undo that. You're responsible for yourself, if that makes sense.
AltNixon ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 20:50:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's called the "Prime Mover" of the universe. Basically, where did the universe come from?
Ok, so you have all this stuff in the universe. Where did it all come from?
The big bang! Ok, so what caused the big bang?
God? Ok, where did God come from?
Migrated from a different universe to start this one? Popped into existence? Ok, popped into existence where? And what prompted this pop?
Basically no matter what path you take backwards, you can never arrive at a beginning unless you make assumptions or say "just because".
SBorealis ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:54:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if God always existed? If God is outside of the universe, the rules do not apply to him.
Sub-Zero96 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:58:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If God is outside of the universe then that "outside" exists. And then you have the same questions but for that "outside of the universe" part.
Typhoonjig ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 10:50:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe being by definition all things that exist, god can't be outside the universe, if god exist he is in the universe, if he exist before everything else he is at some point the universe itself and still may have a starting point.
Typhoonjig ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:49:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or maybe just there isn't "before" at some point, time may have a starting point for all we know.
Quelklef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:30:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here's my idea:
The Universe is contained within some other system. Ostensibly, since that system is without the Universe, it is not subject to the Universe's laws. Thus, perhaps it is not subject to causality, allowing it to spontaneously generate the Universe.
AltNixon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:50:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is actually a theory that involves that. I am a bit foggy since it wasn't my area of research, but I think it involved pocket universes, wherein a "universe" was created in a larger structure whenever a bubble managed to form and hold its structure, and it allows for multiple universes within this structure. It was a talk given at my university, so I am not super sure of all the details.
Quelklef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:54:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Oh, yeah, I think I've heard of that, too.
The bubble model of the Universe seems to fit well with its strange expansion. Maybe we'll pop.
HumanUser1 ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 23:06:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That I have just changed your entire life by making you read this comment. Itโs almost imperceptible, yes, but your life is now different. Woah.
Zephyr4813 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:38:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You may have caused someone to stay up a few seconds later and therefore wakeup a few seconds later. If I get hit by a car on my morning commute I'm blaming you.
Update: didn't get hit by a car. Thank you for saving my life
HumanUser1 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:00:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For some reason now I feel I should lawyer up. Somethingโs wrong here.
Edit: I am glad nothing happened, but typing that โeditโ cost you time. I prefer not to think much about it.
LockmanCapulet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:43:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it not equally likely that he prevented you from being hit by a car that would have struck you on your normal commute?
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:53:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, it's a lot more likely that I would not be hit by a car.
HumanUser1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:04:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Seriously, every time you post/edit something new here, you are spending precious time that is constantly changing the variables of what will happen in your life. Do you want to give me a heart attack?
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:44:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are thousands of concepts like that which can rip your mental state apart if you let them.
HumanUser1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:26:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
History is being written as we go, I guess. Thatโs NUTS, if you really think about it.
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:39:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time is relative and we only experience it in one way as humans.
If you were to die and be recessitated a million years from now from your preserved brain, it would feel like blinking and finding yourself a million years in the future.
Mullet_Police ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:45:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What about the parts of my life that I canโt remember? Whyโd you have to go and change those?
HumanUser1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:58:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because I could.
Edit: Also, I apparently just saved someoneโs life.
JargonR3D ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:02:56 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wanna fuckin die
OttieandEddie ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 14:33:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How movements get started
FrikkinLazer ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 18:35:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you arrange atoms in a very specific way, you can create an object that is capable of experiencing pain. We know this, becausr your brain is such an object.
[deleted] ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 21:16:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
xcelleration ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:29:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As far as we know...maybe dead brains just can't communicate. Wow, that would be another type of nightmare.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:13:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
xcelleration ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:08:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think I remember there was a guy who had half/most of his brain damaged but was still operating fine.
PointyOintment ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:37:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It contains the same atoms, but they're no longer arranged in the same way (considering arrangement not just in space but also in timeโlife is necessarily a process, not a static object).
LockmanCapulet ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 07:50:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Electrical fields aren't "stuff", IE not made of matter. The dead brain thing is an interesting point, though.
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:39:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Matter is just another form of energy.
pheonixs1234 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:20:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought the brain couldn't experience pain?
PointyOintment ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:38:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It can't sense pain, but it's what perceives pain sensed by other parts of the body.
DOG-ZILLA ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:53:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually, I could slice into your brain and you wouldnโt feel a thing. The brain itself never evolved to feel pain. I guess because at the point of being exposed and in danger of damage to it...well, youโd be dead.
ZyraReflex ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:16:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The thing is, the brain itself can't actually experience pain. It's just being told that it is feeling pain by shit tons of connections in the nervous system. I get your point however. (Hope I'm not wrong, then I would really look like an asshole)
FrikkinLazer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:05:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The brain cannot generate pain when damaged, but it is the only thing that can experience it, because you are your brain.
Fuck_You_Downvote ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 20:35:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Species evolve to handle their environments. When you look at newborns, they have no innate knowledge on how to act, but they all more or less act the same. They do so out of survival, to be cute and to act in a predetermined way that all newborns need to act.
Babies who are not interacted with, die. Even if you feed them, cloth them, protect them from elements, an untouched baby dies as a much higher rate than one who is touched.
The environment for people, is other people. We are conditioned to think in groups, to seek approval, to interact with others in a socially acceptable way.
If you put someone in solitary confinement, away from other people, they will die or go crazy.
How far can you move it? How far from other people can you push it? What if our social circle is not our immediate surroundings, as it was for millions of years, but worldwide? What if instead of our family and local community, we seek the approval of weird internet strangers instead?
Can you have people withdraw via the internet from others, or would we all eventually turn into Hikkikomori, internet based hermits? Would we still even be human?
batsofburden ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 08:14:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not totally true, there's hermits & monks & the like that live solitary lives by choice.
PianoManGidley ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 14:49:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's a hypothesis about the universe in which we live that our universe is not only one of many, but that all the universes exist like bubbles atop a pot of boiling water. Just coming into existence, expanding, and eventually simply popping out of existence.
In this hypothesis, all of existence will one day just cease to exist because our universal bubble will burst. The entirety of the universe will cease to be in a millisecond, with no warning whatsoever, and there's nothing any of us could do about it. We will all just cease to be.
efie ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:21:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This hypothesis has no grounds in modern cosmology. Nothing will just cease to be. Depending on the amount of energy supplied to the universe when it started expanding, the universe will either a) keep expanding until everything gets too far away from each other, b) reach a peak expansion point and start collapsing back in on itself, or c) expansion will stagnate.
commit_bat ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:46:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Boiling water doesn't just disappear
PianoManGidley ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:50:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a metaphor, though. Obviously, the material source of multiverses would have different properties than water.
Stevecarrrx ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:26:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's entirely possible that it's the same as water though....
qwerty12qwerty ยท 50 points ยท Posted at 16:15:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are the universes way of exploring itself
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:39:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe plays with itself.
PookiWooki ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 18:54:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe diddles itself.
Moshynnn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:05:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe jacks off by making the things inside itself jack off.
MatCauthonsHat ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:58:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Great Maker you might be onto something.
TheKober ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:00:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Stop using me to masturbate, Universe!!
Or at least pay me a drink, dude.
wordsworths_bitch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:21:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
we are space AIDS.
squijward ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:07:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Something that always messed with me is the paradox of theseus's ship. Basically theseus had a ship and one data part of it broke so he replaced it. You wouldn't consider that ship to be any different really, it's the same ship. So then later another part breaks and he replaces it. He keeps replacing prices of it until no part of it is the original. Would it be the same ship or would it be different. At each replacement the ship stays the same so it would never change each time it would just be replacing one part. You can go a step further and have theseus use the original prices to build a second ship. Which one is the original?
You could claim that at 50% it switches and that is pretty reasonable. But you can apply this to yourself and say that as your cells die and replace each other it is like you are replacing parts of the ship but you wouldn't think that you were becoming a different person, you 10 years ago is still the same.
(I probably explained this badly I am in a rush)
liluglydude_0 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:48:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I listened to a lecture by a Buddhist monk who gave a similar analogy to explain how we are always changing, and that the concept of identity and being a fixed object (the self) in the world is ignorant even in a scientific sense: he then gave the example you gave of our cells all dying and regenerating new ones over time
megotlice ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:15:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see two "solutions". It's never the same ship, or it's the same ship for as long as humans decide that it is.
joe1up ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 21:47:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are 7.4 billion people on this planet. Each with thier own hopes, dreams, failures, relationships, goals, and I don't even know 0.01 percent of them.
Detroids ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:24:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that's called sonder. The realization that anybody you've seen walking down the street is either living their own life just as complex as yours or is dead. Or perhaps you're going on a simple Sunday drive. One of the cars next to you could be on its way to assassinate the president and you'd be completely oblivious.
Keinichn ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 20:33:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he's not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he's malevolent.
Is he able and willing? Then why does evil exist?
Is he neither able, nor willing? Then why call him God?
-Epicurus
The existence an omnipotent, benevolent God is impossible, based on the world today.
AirHeat ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 03:28:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Minimize suffering maximize free will?
AudacityOfKappa ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 04:18:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is not a real quote by Epicurus.
Explain_like_Im_Civ5 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:10:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It reminds me of this excerpt from Angels & Demons by Dan Brown:
Lieutenant Chatrand: I donโt understand this omnipotent-benevolent thing.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: You are confused because the Bible describes God as an omnipotent and benevolent deity.
Lieutenant Chatrand: Exactly.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Omnipotent-benevolent simply means that God is all-powerful and well-meaning.
Lieutenant Chatrand: I understand the concept. Itโs justโฆ there seems to be a contradiction.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Yes. The contradiction is pain. Manโs starvation, war, sicknessโฆ
Lieutenant Chatrand: Exactly! Terrible things happen in this world. Human tragedy seems like proof that God could not possibly be both all-powerful and well-meaning. If He loves us and has the power to change our situation, He would prevent our pain, wouldnโt he?
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Would He?
Lieutenant Chatrand: Wellโฆ if God Loves us, and He can protect us, He would have to. It seems He is either omnipotent and uncaring, or benevolent and powerless to help.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Do you have children?
Lieutenant Chatrand: No, signore.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Imagine you had an eight-year-old sonโฆ would you love him?
Lieutenant Chatrand: Of course.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Would you let him skateboard?
Lieutenant Chatrand: Yeah, I guess. Sure Iโd let him skateboard, but Iโd tell him to be careful.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: So as this childโs father, you would give him some basic, good advice and then let him go off and make his own mistakes?
Lieutenant Chatrand: I wouldnโt run behind him and mollycoddle him if thatโs what you mean.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: But what if he fell and skinned his knee?
Lieutenant Chatrand: He would learn to be more careful.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: So although you have the power to interfere and prevent your childโs pain, you would choose to show you love by letting him learn his own lessons?
Lieutenant Chatrand: Of course. Pain is part of growing up. Itโs how we learn.
Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca: Exactly.
ImJustCanadian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:59:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, I know this is a fucked up answer, but without suffering there cannot be happyness.
wordsworths_bitch ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:24:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i mean, the heroin dealer below me can prove that wrong for the rest of your life.
LockmanCapulet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:38:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
By this logic, the act of granting us free will was malevolent.
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:36:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The world would make much more sense if we assume god is just a douchy fratbro that got bored of torturing us halfway through...
LockmanCapulet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:31:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How does that make more sense?
Typhoonjig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:48:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Theologician will say that god is all benevolent and allow even the existence of evil as the gift of existence is pure good.
A weird way to twist your brain around it but this thing wont convince any believer.
JargonR3D ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:12:13 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Evil doesn't exist. It's just a big misunderstanding.
thecodersnephew ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:23:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The thing about this is that God can prevent all the evil in the world. But by doing this he has to take away the free will of all those who donโt follow his path. The God of Christianity created humans because He is a relational being. If He created us to love Him, and then forced us to love Him, itโs not really love. The only way we could actually love Him, is if we chose it, which means some can choose to not love Him, and choose to do whatever they want. This is what lead to sin which is just going against Godโs perfect nature, or shalom, which creates evil in the world.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:46:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, so what about when a tiger eats somebody, or a tsunami wipes out a village, or an asteroid devestates a province, or a disease kills millions. Did God give all of these things free will too?
DeepGiro ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 19:53:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time doesn't exist, there is only a perpetual 'now'.
Science has never been able to prove the existence of time.
Time, as we know, it is merely invention created to allow us to make sense of the clockwork nature of the universe.
obscureferences ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:23:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You could say the same about any concept. It's not like people believe time has mass or otherwise "exists".
GodFeedethTheRavens ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:41:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time isn't really a distinct thing, it's why Space-time is a concept.
TheNarfanator ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 21:18:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The notion that your world is based from the language you speak.
Business, religions, science all have their own nomenclature. The more you know the better adept you are at communicating and progressing into those cultures/discourse. The less you know, the more limited you are.
This holds true for multi-lingual people too. People who can speak English, Spanish, and Japanese (for example) are able to find out more about the world because they can communicate with through different cultures.
โThe limits of my language means the limits of my world.โ - Wittgenstein
droogans ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:18:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is why people who are super into their religion learn the language it was originally written in.
And to think, it's still just a translation at best.
nevaraon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:08:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sucks to be someone who sucks at learning languages. Like me
DerthOFdata ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 17:54:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hydrogen is a colorless, odorless gas, which if left alone in large enough quantities, for long enough, will begin to think about itself.
PointyOintment ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:40:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Colorless and odorless are properties of our senses, not of hydrogen.
DerthOFdata ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:45:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your argument is with Carl Sagan. The Originator of the quote.
tededit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:33:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like the kind of thing that will get itself into a lot of trouble. How do we stop it?
Smashgunner ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:55:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How the actual fuck did we figure this ou- oh you're talking about humans. Figured that out mid-reply.
thank.
Mar_ce ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:59:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The question on our goal here. I mean everyone crosses life accepting the rules given (get a job, wife, have children, raise them, die) but is there some sense in that ? What the fuck are we doing here and why ? If someone have the answer, feel free to share
BaronVonManCheetah ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 23:09:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I believe we don't actually have a goal other than the one we create. There's no greater purpose, just a whole lot of possibilities. I take comfort in it, because it means that I can't fail anyone but myself ultimately.
Mar_ce ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:35:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sadly you must be true, we are a kind of atom arrangement that can replicate itself and randomly generated by the universe. We are a transient step of the matter, quick emergent consciousness of the universe itself doomed to disappear.
megotlice ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 09:28:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Slightly unrelated but I'm 24, and I've spent all of my life trying to achieve the life I've been told I should pursue. Now I realise that a lot of it is shitty advice based on culture at the time and that many of those people are probably as miserable as I've been, chasing the carrot of a "good life".
It doesn't make sense for our species to evolve in a way that everyone wants the same thing. The best long term solution is to have different individuals who can cover each other, but we've allowed the majority to define what success is and I think it's making a lot of people miserable.
Justice_Man ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:48:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Life is a way for the cosmos to know itself.
Since the big bang, matter has grown in complexity, until it could form stars. These stars burned, exploded and died to form more stars, and even more complex elements, like iron & calcium.
Eventually things got complex enough to form planets, and microbes, and life. Eventually that life grew complex enough to develop culture, society, and writing.
Eventually those cultures and writings got so complex, they gave rise to science, consciousness, intelligence, which can now look at the stars they came from, and label them.
We are a way for the universe to understand itself.
Foxssg ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:42:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Underrated post. The more I think on this the more I like it.
Majinko ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:33:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That life is ultimately pointless and because of our intelligence, we actually have the worst end of the stick because we can know such great joy and pain outside of instincts.
Zephyr4813 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:34:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I definitely believe we die the worst deaths of any living earth creature
Majinko ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:29:12 on April 14, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, roaches sprayed with RAID. They die from overstimulation.
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:42:48 on April 14, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, but a roach doesn't even have the capacity to understand the permanence of death.
pazneria12 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:14:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It is impossible to prove to me that I am not 100% immortal.
SBorealis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:02:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"INFINITE POWER!!!"
obscureferences ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:10:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ever aged? Been hungry? Bled? Congratulations, you're at least slightly mortal, and therefore not 100% immortal.
Typhoonjig ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 10:56:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nope, you'll have to kill him to prove that, nothing tells if making him bleed or age will kill him in the end, therefore you can't prove this to him.
obscureferences ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:26:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Immortal, def; Live forever, neither dying or decaying.
Don't have to kill him if there's any decay.
Typhoonjig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:48:40 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only if aging is for him a form of "decay" and not just an aesthetic feature.
Sub-Zero96 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:07:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah his question just isnt good. You cant be "a bit immortal" or in his case 100% immortal. You either are or arent immortal.
But then also you need a clear definition of word immortal. Immortal can either mean that your existence in some way cant be stopped, or that you cant die (in the way of your heart stopping, or brain, or whatever).
obscureferences ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:21:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I chose to credit the question by taking 100% to mean immortal by all definitions.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:46:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
agree-with-you ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:46:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree, this does not seem possible.
Typhoonjig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:56:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Exept for vodka !
Sergeant_Fred_Colon ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 11:47:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That mad people don't know they're mad, in other words you may not be reading this, you might be having a psychotic episode in a 19th century asylum, dribbling and chained to a wall. And there would be no way to know.
Detroids ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:40:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
this one messed with me
Mullet_Police ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:01:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Acknowledging this possibility doesnโt make life any less joyful. Quite the opposite, really.
Dxrkoka ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 17:21:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time. How long is forever..? Time is a measurement created by people but what really is โtimeโ? Is there an end of time? I donโt know, it just messes with me.
efie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:29:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time is relative based on your perspective, but it wasn't invented by people.
Dxrkoka ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:30:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The measurement of time was, which is what I was referring to.
HokaininPfunk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:50:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is why my best friend and I decided we would be friends for only half of forever.
fakenewspeddler ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 17:41:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no real way to measure whether people are happier now than they were 500, 1000, 10,000 etc years ago. We have no way to sort of prove that we have actually made the world a better place for us.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:13:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Sub-Zero96 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:28:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Like every single thing that ever happened, it has its good sides and bad sides. You are wrong to say that all it caused was bad.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:34:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Sub-Zero96 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:50:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
And that doesnt make it automatically right. Even in mathematics where you need to work your ass off to prove something and only then be able to say it, theories are constantly proven false. And here you are talking about something that he just simply said.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:04:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Sub-Zero96 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:16:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah sorry for ever doubting him. The guy was a literal god, a perfect being, and not a single thing that ever came out of his mouth was untrue.
puckbeaverton ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 17:55:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's no way to know if anything has ever actually happened.
droogans ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:14:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Buddah was not convinced that he was real.
Reading about that in a book forced me to come to some other conclusions, by the logic of my experience.
tededit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:29:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's Reddit in a nutshell.
TJeffersonsBlackKid ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 19:11:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought this thread was going to be really fun and interesting and then I realized I am a dumbass who doesnโt understand any of this shit.
Mastahamma ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:29:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I thought this thread would be fun and interesting but most of is just people arguing with medieval philosophers about God's inexistence
EighthScofflaw ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:34:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If it makes you feel better, most of it is nonsense.
SBorealis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:00:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe it's better to be ignorant of it and live happily than be aware of it and have an existential crisis.
I am saying this because I am having the latter right now and I feel like my head is going to explode
batsofburden ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:12:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hey there's plenty of miserable people who don't think about stuff like this.
SBorealis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:42:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, then they might probably be better off without those dillemas
The_Stryking_Warlock ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 19:42:14 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nothing proves or disproves the idea of a god.
bluesam3 ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:38:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That depends entirely on what you mean by "the idea of a god". If you mean "some vague ill-defined thing with no properties", then sure. For any specific definition of "god", that isn't true at all.
farm_ecology ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 21:30:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But the idea of God is meaningless. Once you ascribe properties it becomes provable or disprovable.
expensivepens ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 22:03:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What do you mean by the idea of God being meaningless? I do agree that ascribing properties to God is misguided - and I think via negativa or negative theology is the most honest way to try and โdescribeโ God
farm_ecology ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 22:41:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Basically what a God is, is not agreed upon. The general concept of a God then is just meaningless until you start to explain what you mean by God. So up until then, you can't prove or disprove it because nothing is being claimed.
I dont agree that ascribing properties to God is misguided.
expensivepens ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:20:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe misguided is the wrong word, but I think a problem arises when we try and use words based on our human understanding to try and describe God, because thereโs an aspect of God that is totally not-human.
Edit: can anyone clue me in as to why my comments have both been downvoted?
farm_ecology ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 05:20:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly, it's essentially claiming there might be this thing that might have some stuff, but we don't what that traits it might have.
Something like that is impossible to argue against because it isn't a claim, it's just a view that there might be something that somebody night one day describe as a god.
CaptainTotes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:22:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I might not be answering this correctly, but most of human understanding of certain properties we would affix to god is based off of fundamental reason and logic, or science. Fundamentals like how psychics and math are embedded into the universe.
meliorist ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 05:32:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God is a chair.
Truejim1981 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:01:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You just cured atheism. I LOVE CHAIRS.
Typhoonjig ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:53:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then it's on the "not even wrong" position, it just doesn't make any sense and wondering about it is a waste of time.
-Paradox-11 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:09:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Same could be said about a teapot revolving around Jupiter, or the invisible dragon in my garage. Unverifiable things are worthless until evidence proves otherwise. That which is presented without evidence, can be discarded without evidence.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 07:00:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 07:49:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
you just described god...
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 12:13:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
nezrock ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:34:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Link to one of these proofs?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:06:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
nezrock ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:04:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Neither of those hold up under even the smallest amount of scrutiny. And even if they did, they still wouldn't be proofs.
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:36:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God doesn't do any of that.
You just moved the question one step further.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:39:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 12:43:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"God did it" doesn't answer anything, you just replaced "where do we come from" with "where does God come from".
As for your " various proofs for the existance of God as the prime mover, and as the "greatest thing" etc.", you do realize they're all start from the assumption that god exist to prove him, right?
Circular reasoning isn't reasonable at all.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 12:50:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:02:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol, now I'm not sure if I'm getting trolled...
You never wasted much thought on your faith, didn't you?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:04:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:38:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
it's not possible to reason with somebody that doesn't want to be reasonable, so why bother?
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 14:53:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:08:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's interesting that it's always the uneducated simpletons that feel the need to attack the intellectual capacities of their fellow men...
Take care big guy.
And if you ever find the time, read up on some of the things you have such strong opinions about. Knowledge can look scary, but it won't hurt you! :)
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:53:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:05:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whatever you want to tell yourself :)
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 17:36:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:11:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I addressed your argument, you reacted with a mixture of insults and incoherent rambling that made it clear that you neither posses the knowledge necessary to discuss this topic, nor the will to have a reasonable conversation about it.
Not further engaging people like you is the only remaining course of action.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:29:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:37:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure. ;)
Like i said, you're allowed to tell yourself whatever makes you feel better. :)
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:02:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:42:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You realize that a your posting history is public, right?
You play with stones much to big for the glass shack your sitting in. ;)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:25:03 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:33:59 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hehe, cry harder kid.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:35:22 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:03:16 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
^ stay in school kids, or you might end up like this dummy over here
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:08:07 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 07:53:11 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"He exposed my stupidity and general lack of knowledge, but if I'll just repeat pathetic over and over like a kindergartener people will still think I'm smart"
Are you for real kid? :D
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:27:58 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:59:27 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Loser :*
obscureferences ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:43:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Imagine you found an ancient tablet written in the first ever script, which basically pitches the idea of God to the tribe leader and the guy who wrote it takes credit for the idea. Wouldn't that disprove the idea of God as it is, by marking it solidly as a fabrication?
CrushHazard ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:51:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That goes for most ideas though.
wordsworths_bitch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:21:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
nothing can disprove an idea. thats the very point of an idea, is that it's always true. when we find that an idea isn't true, we discard it, adjust it, or perform cognitive dissonance until we can do one of the first two.
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:45:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The general idea of a God? You're right.
But most religions make definite claims about their god that can pretty easily disproven.
It's the parts that are "metaphors" nowadays.
9bananas ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 23:34:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the biblical god? easy. Marcus Aurelius did it literally ages ago:
of there is a god, why is there evil in the world?
if there was a god, and he's benevolent, there would be no evil.
if there is no god, then there's no point in worship.
if there is a god and he allows evil, worship is also pointless, since he won't save you from evil.
alternatively: if god is omnipotent, can he create an object he can't destroy?
if he can't, he's not omnipotent. if he can, he isn't either.
there's literally tons of examples explaining in detail why the very idea of god doesn't make sense, therefore removing the need for prove, for or against the existence of god.
the concept of god(s) is pretty much "This statement is false.": in the end all you know, is that it's a pointless sentence without any useful information, because it only references itself....
amishcatholic ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 01:22:49 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nope - this is "disproof" is pretty well disproved. (It's also misattributed here--it was actually Lucretius who made this argument--Marcus Aurelius was a Stoic and like most Stoics believed in God). It's a well-known issue, known as the "logical problem of evil" and is considered to have been pretty conclusively laid to rest by thinkers such as Alvin Plantinga (although much older thinkers such as Augustine and Irenaeus had made pretty good arguments before). Basically, the problem with the argument is that it is entirely possible that an omnibenevolent God could allow partial evil in order to leave room for some types of goodness which need said evil to exist. For example, there could not be the true good of bravery without at least the fear of danger--and even the fear of danger is in and of itself an evil, even if the feared danger never materializes.
ItsaMeHibob24 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:59:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sorry, but... wouldn't that just mean God isn't able?
As far as I was always taught, God is all powerful. Like, 100% completely limitless, not bound by any logic.
If God can't bring about bravery without fear/danger, doesn't that put a restriction on him?
amishcatholic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:30:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Not bound by logic" just means it is essentially non-being--nothing but a chimera of human language; as impossible as a square circle. By "all powerful" most theists mean not that God is capable of doing absurd and self-contradictory things, since these plainly aren't things--but that God is capable of doing and making all things that are real. Indeed, most theists are keen to say that God cannot do several things such as lie, cease to exist, or anything by nature self contradictory. By "all-powerful" is meant the limitless power to do all that is consistent with God's nature, not to do any absurd thing humans dream up.
Armorend ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:08:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But then, if a God does exist and they created this universe (I'm assuming that's part of what /u/amishcatholic was arguing? Maybe not), wouldn't they have to stay in the bounds of the universe they created? Theoretically speaking they don't have to, but it seems like making something based in rules and then subsequently subverting these rules is a bit silly.
amishcatholic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:30:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah - seems I need some humility. I believe I also misattributed the idea in the original post--it's possibly Epicurus himself (the founder of the school to which Lucretius belonged) or another unknown Epicurean.
BlackSupremacist69 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:59:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've been a practicing catholic for 56 years, my whole life has revolved around praising god. You've made me realize I was wrong. I don't know what to do. I think I have to kill myself.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:57:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
BlackSupremacist69 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:06:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But then there is no purpose to anything! I can't go on!
gyromorgian ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:56:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only if the definition keeps changing
THAAAT-AINT-FALCO ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 23:51:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That depends very much upon your standard of proof...
GodEmprahBidoof ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:00:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That if the universe we live in was created by a big bang, we might not be living in the 1st ever universe. Also there could be multiple universes in existence right now. And that just blows my mind how big everything is
rayoflight110 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:27:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That we think we are our first name and surname, but infact it is just a label that two other individuals gave you. You are actually a life form known as a mammal on a planet, orbiting a star in a vast space time continuum. Everything is just labels and classifications.
Sub-Zero96 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:35:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think thats what everyone knows (or would know, if they paid any attention to it) but its so minor that it doesnt matter at all. Like saying I am Subzero actually means My name is Subzero.
Kevl17 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:29:52 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
JargonR3D ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:21:36 on April 19, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When I was smaller I stared at a tree for a long time and then said aloud 'I wonder what that tree is called' and then tried to explain what I was thinking to the person who heard me. This is sorta what I was thinking.
airbuspilot2436 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 13:02:46 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How do some philosophy majors not end up working as a barista?
Tminusfour20 ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 18:42:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The concept of earth being a side project for God. If he has all the power that the bible and christianity says he has, he could have easily accepted his mistakes in creation on this planet and went to another planet to give it another go.
On that planet maybe he would reveal himself to his creation early on to make sure that there is no question regarding his existence. I assume he would make those creatures perfect in every way and immune to sin and death. There would be no disobeying God or any contempt for him and the things he does or doesn't do. It would be an infinitely better situation for him. So much so that he could easily replicate these perfect creatures on many other planets and abandon his previous faulty creations to fend for themselves. Idk just a thought.
Pikesmakker ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 20:53:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You just described the angels
Tminusfour20 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:54:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hmm never thought about it that way.
Throwmesomestuff ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 20:17:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If God has all the powers the bible says, then he is incapable of making mistakes and, as such, would have gotten everything right the first try. So, if such a God exists, everything is exactly as he wanted it.
Tminusfour20 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:19:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's def another way of looking at it.
LockmanCapulet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:55:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
He did get it right the first try. "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." But he gave us free will, and we screwed it all up.
pazneria12 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:06:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Counterpoint, imagine a world where everyone believes that there is someone who KNOWS everything that is going on at all times, and will punish ill behavior. A world where everyone was designed perfectly, and God decided to watch it. Think about it this way, how boring would that be?
Tminusfour20 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:12:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Incredibly boring. Which it brings it back to the other guys point about this perfectly describing the scenario of angels.
pazneria12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:16:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Didnt really read the other ones, so if someone else said that sorry. Everything in excess is poison, including chaos, order, and in my opinion, boredom.
Cloatey ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:19:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So why doesn't he show up here if that were the case?
Tminusfour20 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:23:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why would he? I assume the human race is a disposable project to him. He kinda punished our entire race and then later on flooded the entire race. I can't imagine us being that important if he created something better and was THAT pissed off at us.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:31:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
holy shit
benjamarchi ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 20:05:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Perhaps you need to read more of the Bible, because most of what you said God would do on another planet, the Bible says he did on this Earth and humans still rebelled against him.
Tminusfour20 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:17:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Number one. I'm a Former Christian well versed in the bible who is now an Atheist. I reject the claims in the bible on the grounds that it contradicts science, history and our modern understanding of the world around us.
Second. Adam and Eve rebelled. I did not. Humanity did not. and God made the entire human race suffer for hundreds of thousands years for the mistake of two individuals who were alive for less than a year.
Third. God literally created his own problems. He has the power and the know it all to make things exactly how he wants them. Its like expecting my 3 year old child to make the right decision the first time and then punishing us for eternity for it. That's cruel and not what a "Father" does.
benjamarchi ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:24:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol ok mate. I'm not debating with you, just pointing out your original statement was very badly related to what's actually told in the Bible. No need to get all defensive about it. So much contempt, geez. Chill.
Tminusfour20 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:43:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol no contempt I promise. "Maybe you should read more bible" is the battle cry of every Christian ready for a reddit religious debate. Sorry if I came across as defensive.
benjamarchi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:44:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No problem mate.
shnozdog ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 18:00:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That there is no such thing as "things"
We are made up of the same elements that make up literally everything in the universe. So we're all essentially the same thing. We ARE the universe. Specifically, because of our consciousness, we are the universe's way of experiencing itself.
Sub-Zero96 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:31:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why exactly? If we define something then it exists. And we defined different "things" as different sets of properties.
nagol93 ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 17:25:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How much is a pile of sand?
Is 10,000 grains of sand a pile? Most people will say "yes". What if you take one grain away? Still a pile, right? Take another away, then another, and so on. At what point is it no longer a pile? Is 10 grains a pile? Is 2? Where is the line drawn?
[deleted] ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 19:22:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If we define a pile to be a collection of things, the answer is two.
This is a paradox of semantics.
OBISerious ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 00:14:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thank you. So many โparadoxesโ are just semantic errors. Or a lack of definition.
RapistBunny ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 23:35:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
i draw the line at 35 grains. One less is just sand, more is a pile.
wordsworths_bitch ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:30:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
a pile is either 4 or 5 pieces. that's when you can form a triangular or quad pyramid, making two layers.
CivilCJ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:27:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My coworker and I discussed this on a slow night. We came to the conclusion that itโs based on its intended orientation. A pile is an unorganized (or mostly unorganized) grouping of objects that has at least one portion (in this case a grain) resting on top of another. Itโs not a stack, because stacks are organized, itโs not just sand, because thatโs just grains in 2 dimensions. There is a natural element of entropy in a pile.
Smashgunner ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:56:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think of a pile as a collection of objects that has more objects on top of it. show me stacked boxes? pile of boxes. show me a single layer of boxes? nice collection. clean this shit up.
nagol93 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:22:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So, would you consider 2 grains of sand balanced to top of each other a pile?
Smashgunner ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:29:07 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
yep.
benjamarchi ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 20:08:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
More like personal philosophy than any real academic stuff: it blows my mind that I will never be able to show my wife how much I really love her.
famousevan ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:35:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can always try ;)
Edit: www.cartier.com
benjamarchi ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:40:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol Nice play
famousevan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:45:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I recommend any Cartier automatic wrist piece. Classy and extremely well built. Also, not as expensive as Rolex or Breitling pieces. ;)
benjamarchi ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:56:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for the tip, diamond dealer ;D
famousevan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:57:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I could have recommended Tiffany. :p
Besides, a fine watch as a gift is usually an invite to someone that they may now feel free to give you one down the road: ;)
KarmaUK ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:30:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd hope my partner would give me one without having to bribe her :)
LockmanCapulet ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:01:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Then all you can do is show her as much as you can. And once you have, show her even more. You can only ever show her even more love than you have before :)
Ginkgopsida ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:32:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The holographic principle. In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as two-dimensional information on the cosmological horizon, the event horizon from which information may still be gathered and not lost due to the natural limitations of spacetime supporting a black hole, an observer and a given setting of these specific elements, such that the three dimensions we observe are an effective description only at macroscopic scales and at low energies.
droogans ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:38:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've never had a term for this. Amazing!
I've always found the comparison to a piano useful here. We experience life in the "middle C octave", with micro and macro events occurring at higher and lower frequencies that we can relate to, understand, and even appreciate.
Then we enter frequencies that are, in a sense, identical in every way to our own, but are shifted as to be imperceptible or otherwise unappreciated due to our configuration for perception.
It's interesting to see that this has been around since the 70's.
TheOneLandon ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:07:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The idea that time could stop and start constantly. From our perspective completely at the mercy of the passage of time we would never know if time actually stopped and started again. Time could stop and stay stopped for years (I don't have the vocabulary to explain the length at which time stops without comparing it to a measurement of time) and start right back up again and we would never notice as no time passed for us!
GeekIsBigZ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:02:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Youโre right, I created a device that can freeze time and no one has ever noticed hehe!
AnfrageUndNachgebot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:43:55 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
great, now we all have problems sitting down...
ForcefulCloud ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:14:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The fact that the only thing we know for sure is we exist in some way shape or form. Everything else is subjective (don't remember exact quote and may have misused a few words, don't eat me alive reddit)
dmtvile ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:16:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
monads
Detroids ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:39:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
for a second I thought this said mcdonalds lmfao
AnfrageUndNachgebot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:25:42 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
thats how marketing works
Webbofconfusion ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:15:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The true meaning of every fortune cookie doesnโt come to light until you add โin bedโ to the end of it.
jerdub1993 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:36:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For me it's always been the concept of solipsism--the philosophy that you are the only person who actually exists because you're the only person that you can prove exists.
It's a ridiculous concept to try to prove to someone else because if you actually believe it's true then why bother explaining it if the person you're talking to doesn't exist?
But on the other hand, how can you actually prove it's not the case?
zezmahaufishivv ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:47:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure if it's been said... But everyone is their own personal universe with their mind being the god that runs it all. Sometimes we run into other walking, talking universes with their own gods with their own agendas. And so on...
Sub-Zero96 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:55:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But we dont run it all. What about the choices that someone else makes us to make (another person or institution or system or whatever). Also, what about the stuff that is happening inside our bodies, you cant control majority of it (unless you kill yourself which isnt really control, its just a one time off button).
SMARTPEANUT3 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:38:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The concept of is-ought distinction from David Hume which basically states that just because something is does not mean that we ought to behave in a certain way. Meaning that we shouldnt assume that something ought to be followed or implemented just because something is a certain way. It would be a grave error to do so and people do it everyday in conversation and the self reflection.
obscureferences ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:07:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Got an example? Is this a morality thing or an independent thought thing or what.
SMARTPEANUT3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:03:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is actually scottist philosopher, David Hume's concept. An example might be something like this, the cost of a sex transition is a tremendous amount, therefore transgendered people ought not be able to enlist in the military. because the latter part is a sheer opinion it cannot be derived by the first statement. So from this example you can see how many vital errors we make on a daily basis.
Edit: this is based mostly on moral and ethical philosophy utilizing logical thought as a key factor.
Sub-Zero96 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:57:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So basically a lot of information (or facts) are just a speculation? He didnt say nothing we already dont know, we just sometimes choose to forget.
SMARTPEANUT3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:01:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No, facts are facts.... but we would be wrong if we were to assume that we ought to act a certain way based on that fact. This could also be unharmful like (i got this example from steven west's philosophize this podcast) if someone believes that people who are doing bad things are doing it because they were never hugged as a child, and so he says that everybody ought to be going around hugging people and spreading as much love as possible just like him. BUT this is a big mistake in logic. As that was a huge assumption stating that people have to act a certain way with no backed up proves logically. So you can see how bad this can be if someone like hitler believed that to rebuild germany, jews ought to be prisoned. Hope I am making sense.
Sub-Zero96 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:06:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
About facts. Facts are what we believe to be facts. We prove stuff, it has to be always true or something like that and we call it a fact. But then again how many times have people been wrong and corrected themselves later. And i dont mean ordinary people, i mean scientists that have "proven" their facts or at least they though so. So not all facts are actually facts, who knows what might be discovered in future that might prove some of them wrong.
SMARTPEANUT3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:55:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Facts are what we proved without doubt. Which may or may not hold true after shedding of new information.
obscureferences ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:24:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So making assumptions and illogical conclusions is bad?
I don't think Dave can take credit for that one.
SMARTPEANUT3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:46:57 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No... no ... think of it as this: because something is a certain way, (basing off of that) you ought to act or be a certain way. That is an illogical statement and it would be wrong of anyone to assume that.
obscureferences ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:21:18 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What's wrong with saying something like "This is dangerous, we should be careful"?
I mean it's skipping over some steps like why being careful is important, and what makes the activity dangerous, but it serves its purpose as a reminder of caution and, once said, the missing information may become very apparent.
SMARTPEANUT3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:35:44 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Its fine to say that you SHOULD be careful, but it would be illogical to say you ought to be careful.
Caine_sin ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 07:57:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We could be the first intelligence in the universe...
MerloTerania ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 08:03:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that we are the physical and energetic universe experiencing itself subjectively. That the unified consciousness of reality is split billions upon billions of times for each life form to experience a different facet of this itself. That we are all one. That we are one with everything. Always.
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:07:17 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This idea of everything being one is quite incredible once you become intimate with it and see how much sense it makes.
It used to just be something I heard people say
Screen_Watcher ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 12:05:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's more of a mathematical problem but Absolute Determinism is pretty dark.
If you threw a handful of dice, what's the chance you'd be able to predict how they would all land? It seems entirely random, but what if you know exactly how hard they were thrown, how they interact with the air, how the shape of each die down to the atomic level changes how they roll? if you knew ALL of the variables, you'd predict it right every time.
Now apply that to the universe. If you know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING the moment of the big bang, you could predict where all of the start would end up, how long until they went supernova, how many planets each would have, what the conditions are like on each planet, when the first life would develop there, how it would interact on an atomic level, etc.
We're not made of anything special, that goes for our brains. Basically, your current thoughts could be predicted at the moment of the big bang.
Shadowyugi ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 12:33:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For me it would be something along the lines of:
You know the name of colour you can't actually describe what a colour looks like. And this is mostly prevalent when trying to explain what colour something is to a blind person with no concept of colour.
father_gemme ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 14:04:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why does existence exist?
dahope ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:25:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the pinnacle of r/woahdude
Emmanuel_Zorg ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:05:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every time I am reminded of the similarities between the biggest things in the universe and the smallest forms of matter I remember that we have no idea what scale we are in and our entire universe really could just be in a dew drop on the back of some alien turtle.
jaigon ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:30:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Q: Why is there something rather than nothing?
A: Well, sure- there's the big bang
Q: Then why did the big bang happen?
A: Quantum fluctuations
Q: Why did quantum fluctuations happen?
A: Because the physical laws dictated it
Q: Why did we have those physical laws?
A: .....................................................
Quelklef ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:44:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Here's my solution to this:
This Universe is within some larger system. That system is not necessarily subject to the same laws as the Universe. So, it may not be subject to causality. Thus, it could spontaneously generate the Universe.
jaigon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:01:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
True, but then the same question could be asked about that larger system. Why does the larger universe have laws that generate other universes. At some point you have to take it as a brute fact without any reason- we have these laws and structure of a parent universe just because its that way. Unfoetunatly, this line of reasoning could cause a theologian to say "well you took the physical laws as a brute fact, so why is it less rational to take God as a brute fact. Afterall you are always asuming something, so why are some brute facts mor palatable than others?"
Quelklef ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:20:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I disagree. Once the larger system is free from causality, we may accept all prerequisites for our universe as having happened without reason.
Agree, to a point. It is that way not "just because its that way" in the sense that it is static, permanent, unending, unquestionable, etc., but rather in the sense that it's a result of the larger system being free from causality and thus has no reason for being that way.
Disagree that I'm assuming anything. I'm not assuming anything about the larger system or the universe, merely giving a scenario which explains the creation of the universe with a terminating causal chain.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:04:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Quelklef ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:26:19 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think there are two ways to approach this:
Our causality-less universe can do whatever it wants, since it's free from causality. Thus, it can produce a universe without causality.
It seems, to me at least, that something contained in a parent system would inherit the parent system's rules, but also may be subject to its own. That is, a child system is as restricted, or more, than the parent system. Note that a causality-less system producing a causal system is consistent with this.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:34:58 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Quelklef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:13:10 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see your point, I think. If I understand correctly, you've interpreted "lack of causality" to imply that nothing can happen, since nothing has a cause. I've interpreted it to mean that anything can happen, since nothing needs a cause.
If we follow my interpretation, then anything can happen, including creating a contained causal universe.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:25:05 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Quelklef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:37:06 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, maybe you can, and maybe you can't:
It depends on if by "can't interact" you mean "are disallowed from interacting" or "simply do not have the ability to interact". That is, is "not having causality" a restriction or an absence?
In the former case, I agree with you; the contained system shouldn't1 have causality, either.
But in the latter case, the contained system is being granted that missing ability, so it's fine.
1 Well, maybe. Note that computer simulations are contained systems which are free from restrictions, e.g. gravity, of the parent system.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:50:11 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Quelklef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:39:02 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would say they don't have the same effect for the reasons I stated before: that while restrictions are necessarily inherited by child systems, an absence may be filled in the child system.
And this is a good question, I opine that they are real systems. However, I never did define 'system', so your point is fair.
Yvl9921 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:03:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Semiotics. Basically, every symbol that exists is arbitrary - this includes words (aside from onomatopoeia). So "Cat" doesn't really mean cat, it means nothing, but we've been programmed, in this society, to associate these random lines and squiggles with the fluffy ball of love and murder.
Quelklef ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:39:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Disagree, to an extent. Hieroglyphs are symbols which have innate meaning derived from a shared experience among people.
Now, if you're talking on a more 'transcendental' level, i.e. you mean that no symbols have any objective meaning1, then yeah, I agree.
1 This could be quantified like so: We consider a symbol to have an objective meaning if that meaning is innately understood by every possible observer2.
2 Ok, I'm going down the rabbit hole a bit, but: Can every observer (or any two observers, really) have the same understanding of the symbol (or anything)? I imagine that the way each observer thinks is slightly different from every other observer.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:00:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Quelklef ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:22:38 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No? What do you mean?
in_need_of_therapy ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 13:14:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That everything in the universe came from nothing. Like a rabbit out of a hat.
Not_Pictured ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 14:32:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We do not know that. We don't really know anything more than that the universe was a lot smaller 14 billion years ago. Small enough our current knowledge of physics stops being helpful in figuring out what was going on.
Colourblindknight ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 15:27:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The fact that our mathematical understanding of the universe breaks when things get really big or really small is still amazing to me.
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 16:46:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also mathematics itself. Why does it work?
Do bunch of right calculations one after another and you can land on another planet.
I recommend checking this documentary called The Great Math Mystery.
Halvus_I ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:26:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It allows you to quantify the universe.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:12:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If it didn't work we wouldn't use it.
berkdrums ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:26:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always think about it like fitting a ring on a finger. The point where it fits conveniently is our current reality. But it wonโt fit when you slide it up or down, at which point you have to resize the ring (Science) to fit the finger (reality). Our understanding at this point can only hypothesize the dimensions of the distal and proximal parts of the finger.
Indosay ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 17:20:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, there are a few concepts like this that most people just sort of have an incorrect understanding of. Not by any fault of their own, most likely, but just because of what we've all been taught. The Big Bang wasn't the beginning of the universe. It was the beginning of the sudden and rapid expansion of our universe from one point to more than one, an expansion that continues today. It's more correct to say it was the beginning of our universe as we know it today and for the last 13.8whatever billion years more or less. It's not that it popped into existence, just that whatever it was before suddenly started to grow very, very quickly. It wasn't like pulling a nonexistent rabbit out of a hat. The rabbit was there, it just suddenly started to grow a lot bigger.
gaslightlinux ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:01:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, that's the big bang. What put into place the thing that gave way to the big bang? Eventually it goes back to nothing.
Indosay ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:07:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nobody knows what's "before" the Big Bang. And in some sense, it doesn't make sense to ask that question. Time is a product of the Big Bang, so technically, there wasn't a "before" as we understand it. Time began at the big bang. Does that mean there wasn't something before it? Not necessarily. It just wouldn't be the way that we currently understand time. Just like there wasn't spacial dimension (left/right, up/down, forward/backward) like we understand it today.
We don't really know what it goes back to. It could go back to nothing. It could keep going back infinitely. Maybe there was no beginning and it's infinite just as many astrophysicists believe space is infinite. Maybe it's in a closed loop meaning the universe has been stuck on the same loop forever. Nobody knows. That's the fun part haha. But we can't really definitively say it eventually goes back to nothing. We just don't know that yet.
gaslightlinux ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:10:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just because something is infinite does not mean it wasn't brought into being. There is a difference between bounded and unbounded infinities. Time, space, and the universe could be infinite, but at the same time there was a state before that.
Indosay ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:13:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You're right! There absolutely could have been a "creation" moment. But there doesn't inherently have to be one. The universe could lack a "creation" for all we know. We just don't have any information before the Big Bang, so we just can't say. There's no reason we can't form beliefs about it, but there's just no information about it so we can't really say anything about it for certain.
immmm_at_work ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:11:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Potentially stupid question: does that mean that all the electrons (or quarks or whatever the smallest unit of matter is) that currently exist and will ever exist were just crammed into an unimaginably dense space? Like if you were to look at the tiny universe immediately before the big bang under an incredibly powerful microscope that could see within atoms, what would you see in there?
Indosay ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:25:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To be honest, Iโm not really sure. A couple of thoughts, though, that may help. So you couldnโt really look โinsideโ the universe before the Big Bang (at least as far as we/I know). This is because โspaceโ didnโt exist yet. What I mean by that is spacial dimensions. So to look inside something, it has to take up space, like a box, that would have a forward/backward dimension, an up/down dimension, and a left/right dimension. Those didnโt exist before the Big Bang. The universe was a single point, a single dot. Not just a really tiny sphere, but literally a single point with zero dimensions. No up/down, no left/right, etc. So itโs not like you could stick a tiny tiny camera inside to peek around because there was no โaroundโ in which to peek as super weird and counterintuitive as that seems haha.
If I were to guess, I would say that those things didnt exist before the Big Bang, at least not in the same state that we know them now. But! Every electron, quark, etc that does exist has existed since the Big Bang. My guess is that they sort of came into existence during the Big Bang. And part of the reason I guess this is that we think there was actually a lot more matter at the Big Bang. There was also the same amount of anti-matter (which sounds weird and sci-fi-y but is really just a creepy name for regular matter thatโs sort of the opposite of regular matter). Iโm not really sure of the exact differences between matter and anti-matter, but the theory goes that, right after the Big Bang, there were equal parts matter and anti-matter. One propriety of matter and anti-matter is that when they come in contact, they destroy each other completely. So the theory goes that all matter should have been destroyed very quickly since there should have been an equal amount of matter and anti-matter. Thatโs one of the mysteries weโre still not sure about. Why is the universe made up almost entirely of matter? Why did matter win out and anti-matter lose? We donโt know. But I say all this to say that if all of the electrons (and anti-electrons) and quarks (and anti-quarks) existed before the Big Bang, stuffed into an infinitely small singularity, they probably would have destroyed each other completely. So my guess is that they all came into existence right at the Big Bang (or at the very least they took on their current existence as this universeโs form of matter whatever that means lol).
Hope that wasnโt too confusing! Iโm not at my Pc anymore so hard to type up good answers on a phone. I will check when I get home, though, what Google says because now Iโm curious what most scientists think haha. Whether they existed before the Big Bang or not. Ultimately, we have no way of knowing because we donโt actually know anything from โbeforeโ the Big Bang. There is no information and probably no way for us to ever get any information, so the answer may sort of always be โwho knows?โ.
gaslightlinux ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:00:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It had to come from something though, and even if that something came from something, eventually far back enough it get's to nothing. No matter how many turtles you stack, they eventually are resting on the void.
efie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:23:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"smaller" doesn't really apply here. The more correct term would be "denser".
Not_Pictured ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:25:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The part we can see was smaller. We don't know what's beyond the part we can see.
PietNederwiet ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 13:52:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is the thing that messes with my head the most. And who even knows? How can something come out of nothing? And if there was something before it, what was it? Is the whole universe just a big loop repeating all over again? Is it actually a simulation?
Conscious_Mollusc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:36:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Username checks out.
Greenmountainsman710 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 13:35:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can't fathom that it came from nothing. But the rabbit out of the hat comes from the hat...so a universal hat existed ? But who brought the hat. And who ever brought the hat... Who made them ?
for_the_Emperor ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:35:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itโs turtles all the way down.
Greenmountainsman710 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:53:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
They did it right. I bet the turtles didn't elect trump
Upvotes_poo_comments ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:42:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, the main thing is that there is no such thing as "nothing", "nothing" is a human abstraction. Even empty space has a chaotic energy from which particles briefly emerge and annihilate themselves.
So it's more correct to say that the Universe or creation or whatever vacillates between order and chaos, not "something versus nothing".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR37JMQw08Y
Greenmountainsman710 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:32:20 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So there is no start and there is no end ? Is time linear ? Has this all happened before ? These concepts are blowing my mind .
Halvus_I ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:25:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Big Bang is an event horizon. We dont and cannot know what came before.
strikethreeistaken ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:28:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No. Everything in the Universe came from Energy.
The real question is why did that Energy exist in the first place?
jackp0t789 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:25:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My understanding is that the the big bang theory doesn't hold that the universe came from nothing, but that everything, all energy and matter, were confined in an infinitesimally small space, a singularity, that eventually burst outward and continues to spread outward to this day.
strikethreeistaken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:31:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There was no matter in the early universe. Hydrogen atoms, the simplest form of matter, did not exist in the really early universe.
etch_a_sketch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:08:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ever read Sophie's World?
SkeletonDude199 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:37:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Either that or we are in a universe that has split off of another one, acting as a large cell, creating mitosis. That is how vibrations can carry outside of the observable universe if given enough time. Its outer boundaries are malleable, and are able to be expanded and, possibly, broken, like cellular life.
This is mostly unprovable because we will not live long enough to see it happen. Something will, though, and thatโs what keeps this vast emptiness filled.
wordsworths_bitch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:22:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
like a hat out of itself
savemejebus0 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:39:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Probably just our definition of what we know and lack of definitions of what we don't. "Nothing" may not be the right word. Whatever the explanation, it will be really fucking cool.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 16:15:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
eclantantfille ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:50:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, yes! Remember, we must be catious when comparing scientific theories to philosophical concepts.
Science is to prove, philsophy is to suggest my friend
fro5sty900 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:36:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Space=Time. No space = no time...
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 20:48:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
hopingforabetterpast ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:41:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not something.
pics-or-didnt-happen ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 17:43:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The center of our universe is the ass end of a black hole in another universe.
Every black hole in our universe is the sucky end of a big bang in a new universe.
Each universe is a single brain cell in the mind of someone in a greater universe.
bepseh ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:20:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That last one.
pics-or-didnt-happen ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:29:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That last one was all me.
efie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:28:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
None of these are even almost plausible
pics-or-didnt-happen ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:29:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
... Michio Kaku and Neil Degrasse Tyson would beg to differ on the first two.
The last one is all me.
efie ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 21:35:07 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you take Neil DeGrasse seriously at all with anything to do with physics then you need to reconsider who or what you take seriously.
pics-or-didnt-happen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:11:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I agree the dude is a one-liner.
Typhoonjig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:11:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If big bang theroy is right, the center of the universe is pretty much everywhere.
PetalDoggo ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 19:01:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The multiverse theory suggests that there is a universe where you are naturally immortal, so, maybe this could be one of these universes, and one of the people reading this is THE ONE.
Stevecarrrx ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:37:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
DIBS! (that's how this works right?)
PmMeGiftCardCodes ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 13:16:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That we are all going to die.
PerennialPhilosopher ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 13:48:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can't prove that!
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:34:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You canโt prove it until you get dead.
GeekyMeerkat ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:42:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even if you die that doesn't prove that everyone will die. It just proves that this individual was indeed mortal.
savemejebus0 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 14:39:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is only now.
SuperMaxPower ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:19:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dont know man, I haven't died once in my life, I think I've got this figured out.
Mastahamma ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:43:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can you prove that as a necessary rule through logic alone?
hoe_fo_show ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:22:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That no matter where you go, there you are.
droogans ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:29:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
stuffedfish ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 00:21:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck it, I'm gonna get high tonight and I'm going to read this whole thread.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:37:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:47:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was going to write "that people were actually scared of rokos basilisk" :)
clinkz_eastwood_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:01:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn it , I wanted y to scare the shit out of people now you ruined...
Nah let's face it, nobody would actually search that
Just_an_AMA_noob ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:27:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I remember stumbling upon it in the past. I canโt people actually fell for it.
Typhoonjig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:17:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's as ridiculous as believing that an all powerfull bearded guy would punish you if you don't act like he want, who will believe that anyway ?
Roko's basilisk is just another Pascal's gambit, disproved the same way.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:17:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In a way, though roko created the basilisk, it hinges on you reading about it, if you never read about it, you're safe.
Typhoonjig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:18:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
But if you never hear about any god too, both are bets on if I live my life like A I would get X, A being an ensemble of conditions and X a reward or punishment.
Kimbrielslice ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:50:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every time i read a conversation about sceptaeism I get a little down. I just find comfort in knowing that I know nothing and Iโm on an endless journey through eternity so I might as well just enjoy the ride instead of analyzing it
PM_ME_FIRM_TITTIES ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:01:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You realize your thoughts when you think about it, otherwise it is a purely instinctual reaction with no coscience behind it.
But you can think about a thougth only after you think about it.
Thus your conscience does not live in the present, but in the past.
StoneLoner ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:41:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Taking the classic view of heaven leads to an interesting idea. If free will is so good as to allow evil then is there free will in heaven? Can I commit sin in heaven? If not then it goes to show that free will isn't good enough to allow evil (provided we operate under the condition that heaven is better than our physical world, and if it isn't better then Christianity and other religions have a lot to consider) This is in response to the common response of the problem of evil, shown here. Q: if God is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving why is there evil? A: because free will is such a good thing, the evil that comes with it is worth the overall net change in goodness.
NatH502 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:55:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The distinction between "primary" and "secondary" properties made hundreds of years ago by John Locke I think. A basic version of this idea is that "primary" properties are properties that exist outside of perception and are very few: time, space/extension, mass, charge, etc. "Secondary" properties are everything else we experience and are a product of primary properties swirling around in our brains. Feels weird man.
anonymoose_anon ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:00:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the ontological argument
recipriversexcluson ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:03:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
People think they understand the known-unknown grid. But there is a bigger 'square' - the things which we can never know.
And it's nearly Lovecraftian to consider.
Tlkos ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:13:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Laplaceโs Demon
SoCo_cpp ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:28:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The next statement is true; the previous statement is false.
coldcasejustice ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:46:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
my brain hurts
Moore29 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:17:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every subreddit is just r/subredditsimulator and I don't know it
HappyDaysInYourFace ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:47:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One interesting theory is the "Zero-energy universe". wherein it is believed that the net total energy of the universe is zero because positive energy (in the form of matter) and negative energy (in the form of gravity) exactly balance each other.
This is what some scientists believe allowed the Big Bang to occur as simply a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum. Therefore, everything is nothing and nothing is everything! There really IS such a thing as a "free lunch"!!!
Maester-15 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:55:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also linguistically speaking, it is possible for a reader to talk with an author. In everyday conversation, there's a feedback between sender and receiver, that is, a real time message with a topic and a context implied. The concept I am trying to describe makes total contrast with this kind of conversation, as there's no dynamic in it. The way this works is that of sender-message and message-receiver. But the message with a topic and a context is still existent. In comparison again with normal conversation, I can just approach to you and say "hey how did things go yesterday?" and you wouldn't understand what I'm talking about because of the lack of context. In the same way, you can pick up a book and you would have to read it up until a certain point in which you'll have collected enough information to deduct what is happening. See? Message, topic, context.
Now that I have explained that, I can say that the way you can have a conversation with an author is reading their works, analysing how and what they write. For instance, are there insane amounts of detail? Maybe the writer had passion for them and they may be crucial for the right understanding of the message, like in George RR Martin's books, for example. You can travel back in time when reading the diary of Anne Frank. This one is easier, as it is a personal journal. The point is that whatever they author wrote, he/she gave a fuck about, and you can get to know them because their texts are part of them and their personality, thoughts, experiences, etc. You can choose whatever book that lies in your house and find out things about the person who wrote it just by reading it.
This idea of communicating with someone who may have been dead for decades before you were born through words on paper is simply amazing and I think it is beautiful.
Edit: spacing
grogiskiev ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:17:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Basically it is an analogical outtake on the bible and the whole "expelled from the garden of eden to wonder all eternety".
My philosophical mind blower is that the more you learn stuff, various stuff, all kinds of stuff, the farther you are from the tree of knowledge. Consider it this way - who hurts the most in an argument - the neverunderstanding fool or the one who have taken the due diligence to learn the side he is representing? The fool (example: flat earthers, political fanatics, you name it) wouldn't even be touched by the facts the erudite would eloquently share thus the ache inside the scholar in this case.
sori97 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:17:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are limited beings. Just as a dog cannot comprehend rocket science, we will neveer fully comprehend the universe. Animals that use echolocation for radiowaves have the sense or organ of perception to detect them. We never knew they existed till we measured them. Who else knows what exists ajd what doesnt. Our mind and sense perceive the universe and in a sense create our reality. What would reality be if we had other senses? This makes reality subjective. And the paradox is, even all of this could be wrong as its coming from me a limited being. Ajd that also is coming from me. Everything is negated the moment its stated. Paradoxes raised to the paradoxes. A system cannot prove anything within itself -Godels theorem of incompleteness.
FindingWhorey ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:40:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think regular people still grapple with Augustineโs free will and omnipotence of god issue
If god knows everything, can do anything, and is just, why do bad things happen to good people and vice versa?
The common answer is free will
However, if god really is all powerful, couldnโt he/she create a universe with free will and yet not do good things to bad people? All powerful means all powerful
Kinda shows the whole issue of an all powerful caring god is either horribly wrong or unmistakably true
Celessar14 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:13:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think, therfore I am.
Does this mean that only I am real, because I am the only one that I know can think? Is everyone else just a superb bit of imagination sprouting from my consciousness? Am I alone??
SMGB_NeonYoshi ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:13:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nobody trully knows you and you don't trully know anyone else.
Everyone has an idea in their head on who another person is, however that idea is based of biases, perspectives and from what they have seen of them. So the idea on what they are is never exactly the same as what they truly are.
VHhh23 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:24:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What makes you, you?
Ultrajante ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:26:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A scene from an episode of Six Feet Under where Brenda (Rachel geiffinthrhfinth) says, quote:
Iโve researched this for years and still canโt figure out how much of this is true or not :/
Frai23 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:33:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every single law exists because people are evil.
Thousands upon thousands of pages accumulated by different states, organisations and religions, be it the american bill of rights, the 10 commandments or european regulation number 166/88/EWG assessment of quality standards of cucumbers, all obsolete.
Kants' categorical imperative would tell us everything we need to know if we weren't such selfish illogical cunts in roughly 20 words, depending on which language.
possessed_flea ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:41:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not entirely true , a lot of laws exist because people are basically evil, but a larger set of laws exist simply so we have agreement about certain ideas ( such as driving on one side of the road, a medical degree is required to practice medicine, or we should all pitch in X dollars so schools are funded and roads are built, regardless of us having children or a car )
Frai23 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:31:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah here is the thing:
Let's take the problem with the roads. Some people would have started building the first roads and signs etc. and would have faced that problem. Those people would have tried to come up with the best possible solution (and obviously decided for right-hand traffic). Everyone else would have stuck to their solution cause it is would cause problems not to.
Kant came up with a clever wording for "always do the right thing". In situations where there is no right or wrong you are basically free to decide and everyone else would stick to your decision if itcauses problems not to.
Teluxx ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:49:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you see a man struggling in the water and know that if someone does not do something to intervene he will drown. You have no way of getting to him, you could not swim far enough to save him, or if you reached him he would over power you and drown you both. However; you see a boat locked up at the dock with a set of padles and a pair of bolt cutters that you couls free the boat with. Now you could argue that it would not be stealing the boat, BUT you know you would be accused and arrested for theft HERE where ever here maybe. Is it wrong to avoid a theft and cause a death? Is it more or less wrong to steal a boat to save a life? There is no right or wrong answer only opinions.
According to Rushworth Kidder when we are forced to make a decision that is a dilemma in a right versus right scenario (of which there are 4 paradigms: (1) community vs. Self (2) truth vs. Loyalty (3) short-term vs long-term and (4) Justice versus Mercy) This decision making is an "obligation to the unenforceable" a place between moral and laws - This is Ethics.
Edit including Rushworths Kidder's book. How Good People Make Tough Choices.
H_JSS_S ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:56:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Solipsism - the theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. I.e. the only thing you can be certain of is your mind, as anything else can be fabricated by simulations or actors etc. It makes me think of The Truman Show, where Truman has lived his whole life thinking heโs normal then one day realises it was all a lie for the entertainment of others. I often think about it and look at someone I know and love, and wonder if maybe itโs all a lie.
Temporary_Guy ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:02:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That becomming self aware in a dream could possibly give you all the tools you need to do anything you want, yet we are urged by our feelings to chase after sex, abilities/power and generally messing about trying to get as much pleassure as possible, just like in real life. Maybe we could do great things in the name of science and knowledge if we spent time training to to use self aware dreaming for experiments, research and learning. All I know for sure is that I wake up sometimes and feeling like I learned something Ill never forget, but i cant remember what it was. Maybe we are living double lives but we had to choose one to keep an anchor in.
THEnimble_mongoose ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:24:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal/
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:31:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks, this is neat
THEnimble_mongoose ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:13:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Stalking the Wild Pendulum
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:29:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:56:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I always believed that religion is created just for human beings to have something to hope for or believe in. Imagine people living lives without anything to hope for in the past, just living life aimlessly etc.
jrfry19 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:45:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That our whole world is perceived through our own perception. Using all our senses. But how do we know all of our senses are parallel with everyone else? For example, picture the color red. How can I prove that my definition of red is the same as my friend's? Their definition of red could be blue but they know it as red.
CritzD ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:46:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Some little thoughts that bother me:
-What happens after we die? Do we just lose consciousness and cease to exist or do we just float in endless space with no human senses? Do we go to an afterlife?
-Why does the universe exist? There is no reason for it to be here, yet it is.
-What if everything in my life I have been doing wrong, and people only say Iโm doing it right because they felt bad?
-Why do dreams faze from memory after we wake up, despite very clearly recalling them before?
-How would I know if anything that happening to me at this moment is real and not a dream? Iโve had dreams where I went about my daily routine and then woke up in bed, did it again and woke up again.
All this and more in the next episode of Why Canโt u/critzd Sleep?
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:19:54 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Try lucid dreaming methods of you really want to blur the line between your reality and your dreams.
I did it and it caused derealization for months. Do not recommend
milsyway ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:09:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt know what this would be called, but if you asked someone โHow much are you willing to pay for this?โ They respond โ10$โ Then you say โWhat about 10.01$?โ Of course they would say yes, and you can just keep going up because no one will not be willing to pay one extra penny.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:36:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
While not necessarily mind blowing, Thomas Hobb's theory about the reason governments (states) exist has always been fascinating to me.
Thomas Hobbs (and many other Enlightenment philosophers) believe that mankind naturally exist in a state in which there are no restrictions on their actions (they called this the "state of nature"). But, in order to obtain security for themselves, they would surrender some of these freedoms, and in the process form a "state." Ultimately, the balance of security and liberty are the primary concerns of this "state" (or any ruling body, for that matter). In fact, I'd be willing to wager that Benjamin Franklin's famous quote about the relationship between liberty and safety was directly inspired by Hobbs
Existerequo ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 07:53:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The most mind blowing philosophical concept I know is Existere Quo.
This will be hard to put into words, so just bear with me (rawr).
You know how one of the only things you can be 100% certain of is of your own existence (cogito ergo sum)?
Well, I am equally certain of some strange properties in the consciousness that is me. Existere Quo is both the properties and the consciousness itself. (I know how it sounds. I would roll my eyes too.)
Probably most, if not all, people have at least similar thoughts. So I'll try not to sound (or be) too narcissistic.
Known properties
This is the best analogy I could come up with. Everything about this existance is normal, except that there is a camera glued onto it and I can know it is there... because it's one and the same. (You could also think of it as a First Person game where the character is fully aware that there is a camera looking through his perspective)
Because it's all glued together, I know for more than a fact that no other consciousness in all of existance has currently the same properties. If one ever came to be it would have to share space in the same mind, Kinda like "Sense8" (Or a weird split-screen). (this is the worst part where even I have to question myself about delusions of grandeur. But no, it's just the way the goddam thing works.)
As far as I know there is no way to test any of it. It has no other influence on reality other than on my personality and ideas. It, just like existance itself, has seemingly no purpose or reason for being here. (It has probably helped to create a bit of an egocentrism within me... but at this point is just who came first and who created who as far as you people are concerned)
I am sincerely looking for any possible ideas or insights involving this. Not much hope tho.
Teraus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:02:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is related to Qualia and the Hard Problem of Consciousness, too.
I often wonder: if this universe has existed for billions of years before I came into being, why is this observer in this brain? Why didn't this perspective come into being on any of the countless brains that came before of after it?
It's hard to formulate the problem, because a physicalist will simply say that the brain is indistiguishable from this "perspective", but I think you know what I mean. This mind could be exactly the same (same memories, sensations and abilities), and not have this "perspective". In fact, you can imagine two brains with switched perspectives, while nothing else changes about them. An interesting thought experiment.
Existerequo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:27:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, that definitely is a problem with a lot to do with Existere Quo.
"Why didn't these properties appear in an alien? Or at some other time? What made them appear now and here? Will it just vanish in the end along with everything else? All points to yes. But then why would such a singular and bizarre characteristic come into being??? Will I just die without knowing????? Are there other consequences I haven't thought about yet? Should I even persue such a doomed line of inquiry?"
The worst part is being such an epistemological truth from my perspective, while not having a single way of showing it.
Thank you for replying.
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:38:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Where did you find the term "Existere Quo"? I googled it and couldn't find anything too relevant
Existerequo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's just a word I invented to be able to speak (mostly think) about it better. It was really teen angst pseudo-scientific term too.
It's supposed to be like how we say "Status Quo" referring to the existing state of affairs. It would be really annoying to keep saying "the existing state of affairs" over and over, right? Well, Existere quo is the current existence with those "properties". Which explains nothing to someone else, but helps condense the concept into something more approachable (hopefully).
Teraus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:20:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I see. You must be like me and occasionally have some solipsistic thoughts, too. Maybe there is only one such "observer", that just hops between all minds across time and space. Or just some minds, at least. Some people could be actual philosophical zombies, as far as I'm concerned.
Existerequo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:03:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I know other people (probably all people) have very much the same experience of consciousness that I do.
But the problem for me is the way I can be absolutely certain that this is something much diferent from the experiece all other people (heck all other consciousness in the universe) have. Fundamentally diferent. For no rhyme or reason.
And the worst part is not being able to adequately explain it to anyone. Something so fascinating, doomed to be forever seen as an egocentrical narcissistic rambling of an imature adult. Drives me nuts just to think aboat it.
hjw49 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 08:32:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even the smallest multicellular creatures have consciousness. Tardigrades on up... Apparently cells are far more complicated then we dare think.
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:05:52 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why do you think this?
Typhoonjig ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 09:49:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That we probably are just a perfectly predictible application of the law of physics, that everything we think or do is "written" in advance and we can't do nothing about it, even thinking about it is in the script, we're just the organ universe use to think about itself (with a shitload of anthropomorphism but hey not my fault).
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:18:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:03:30 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like it. I haven't really thought of this
cronin98 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:24:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right before we read Plato's Allegory of the Cave (this was like day one of my first high school philosophy class), my teacher just asked "Do you trust your senses? Why? What proof do you have that your senses haven't been wrong your entire life?" And basically that opened epistemology and metaphysics right up in my world. Between the Allegory of the Cave and the brain in a vat argument from Descartes, it took me a long time to get a reasonable understanding of how much I should criticize something before trusting it.
sportz-fan ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:50:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โi do not believe in styles anymore. i donโt believe that there is such a thing as a chinese way of fighting, or a japanese way of fightingโฆ styles tend to only separate men, because they have their own doctrines which became the gospel truth, but if you donโt have styles, here i am as a human being, how can I express myselfโฆ that way you wonโt create a style. because style is a crystallization; not continuous growth.โ - Bruce Lee
BluE_actual ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:29:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Consciousness. We don't know what it is. We don't know why it is. We don't know where it is. We don't know how it works, what boundaries it has, and why other animals don't have it. Watch this. An existential crisis is always a unique experience.
TitaniumDragon ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:29:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Fermi Paradox and the Great Filter.
If starfaring civilizations are even remotely common, one should have already colonized the entire Milky Way galaxy. Indeed, it should have happened billions of years ago.
We see no evidence of any such civilization. As far as we can tell, no such civilization exists in the Milky Way.
This contradicts the mediocrity principle. Thus, either humans are very unusual (making it problematic to draw conclusions about the galaxy based on our planet/solar system, which may be highly unusual in some way), or humanity is likely to wipe itself out before it becomes a starfaring civilization.
xilstudio ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:29:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Mass Effect series has a great explanation about the Filter (horrible ending aside). Something was enforcing it.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:50:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time doesnt exist in the way that we think it does. It could be spacetime where time is a propertie of space or it could be slices/crosssections of our dimension smooshed together to make our universe and each moment is 1 slice. Corroborated by the theory of relativity and quantum physics.
Kokleekio ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:30:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Think about following statements and tell me if you rather agree/disagree.
Value is discovered.
Value is created.
jonesg ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:36:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
All of our relationships with other animals (humans, pets, etc) are made up in our head; additionally they can change in less than a second.
Shaunaaaah ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:27:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm a philosophy grad student, there's an incredible amount taken for granted in just everyday conditional statements, unpacking it is incredibly interesting with possible world implications and such.
wugggs ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:05:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The idea that I could be surrounded by p-zombies is pretty terrifying
Evravon ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:16:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm going to start this post by saying a few things that won't seem to make sense right now, but they're relevant. 1) I have a very rare, unusual reaction to marijuana. 2) I think marijuana helps a lot of people in the world and is useful. I am not against marijuana. 3) It wasn't laced. It was legal and from a brand new prescription.
A year ago, I was visiting a friend in the town I went to high school in. He smokes weed. I had tried it before, but never had a pleasant experience, but that day I was feeling good and wanted to try it again because the terrible memories of the last bad trip had faded away. I took one hit off a joint he was smoking. This is when this crazy philosophical concept popped into my head and changed my life forever. My life is now "everything that happened before that day" and "everything that's happened since that day". I recognized the terrifying paranoia right away. I recognized the fact that I lost the ability to push unwanted thoughts from my mind. Attempting to do so would fail, and then I would be stuck thinking about the fact that I am now thinking about pushing unwanted thoughts from my mind. I could go on, but I won't.
I've told this story before. Most people don't believe me.
I went batshit crazy within 10 minutes. I suddenly knew what reality actually was. It suddenly felt like I had lived this life a countless number of times before. Being born, living the exact same life, and dying, then starting over and doing it again with no memory of any of it. "That's all reality is." It wasn't some stupid idea, it was a fact. I knew it to be true in that moment. It made so much more sense than anything else ever had. I lost all desire to live in that instant. "You've experienced this before. You always get high here, at your friend's house, the memories come flooding back in, and you kill yourself because you can't go on knowing how meaningless it all is. This is where you die."
I walked out onto the balcony and jumped from the third floor. My friend watched me go outside, thinking I was going to smoke a cigarette. He said I jumped clear over the balcony railing like it was the most natural thing in the world. No fear at all. By the time he sprinted over to the railing and looked down (thinking he just watched me commit suicide), I had just collapsed and fallen unconscious. I didn't feel like myself for 5 months after that happened.
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:44:55 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Damn man that's a rough reaction. I have had some bad reactions but never did I threaten my own safety. In fact, I normally couldn't move.
I have come to life conclusions that are profound and hold their weight in sober though, though.
Evravon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:30:54 on April 14, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not suicidal when sober, either. I just have a very very bad reaction to weed.
witticism4days ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 18:40:38 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Basically, that moving at the speed of light means time does not exist from that perspective. So an uninterrupted photon hasnโt experienced any time since the Big Bang.
obscureferences ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:53:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it would perceive actions ahead of it as happening twice as fast and bright, things behind it frozen in time and dark, and things beside it in real time (for the fraction of time they were neither ahead or behind it).
sky7dc ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:36:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My favorite has to be the debate of consequentialism vs deontology.
Thereโs an excellent and famous thought experiment that demonstrates this.
Youโre standing to the side of some trolley tracks. On the tracks in front of you are 5 people, all tied up. A trolley is coming down the tracks, and it will kill all 5 of them. Next to you is a switch. If you pull the switch, the trolley will switch paths and go down a second track, saving the lives of the 5 people. However, there is one person tied to this alternate path, and the trolley will surely kill them. Itโs important to note that YOU will be directly responsible for the death of that one person.
Most people would say theyโd throw the switch, and that would make them a consequentialist. The death of one person is not as bad as the deaths of 5 people, so the morally right thing to do is let the one person die.
Now letโs look at it a different way.
Youโre a surgeon, and you have 5 patients that are about to die of organ failure, and they have very little time. You manage find to someone that is a perfect match for all 5, but they obviously donโt want to lose their organs because the resultant would be death. Do you kill the person in cold blood, grab their organs and throw them into the waiting bodies of the other 5 patients? Or do you let the 5 die?
Most people here would say that they wouldnโt kill the one person. You are actively murdering an otherwise perfectly healthy human, and thatโs morally wrong.
This debate has raged for the better half of the last century; Is there an immovable, inflexible moral code that permeates the universe and that we must abide by? Or is morality based in circumstance and conditions? Can something morally wrong in one circumstance be right in another?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:48:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
sky7dc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:52:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait, sorry, passively murdering who?
CD_4M ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:22:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you have an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters, one will eventually re-create Shakespeare.
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:36:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If the number is infinite, the monkeys will type Shakespeare once they've been given the minimum necessary time to do so
dralcax ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:07:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time to get looking.
ICUMTARANTULAS ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:34:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The concept of the Universe being Infinite, by definition, if the universe is truly infinite, then that means there are an infinite number of earths, where we are sitting exactly where we are now, having these exact conversations, to a infinite scale.
. . . Also that means there is no Fiction, because somewhere, there is an earth where that shit is happening.
PedroVinhas ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 20:05:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think that's correct. There's an infinity of numbers between 0 and 1, and that doesn't mean that there's a three somewhere in there.
SpaxsonEpicNoob ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:20:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Correct me if I wrong, but if there is an infinity of numbers then could it not get to the point where the numbers as we know them are ordered "incorrectly" from our view point? I.E. 94302 somewhere is the same as 12345
Genuine question, no hostility intended.
EighthScofflaw ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:24:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Are you asking whether the numbers are in a different order somewhere else in the universe?
SpaxsonEpicNoob ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:41:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty much yeah.
EighthScofflaw ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:21:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Have you ever had to check your current location in the universe when counting up?
SpaxsonEpicNoob ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:09:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When counting stock in a warehouse it helped due to they way stock was stored. Im not sure how it relates, could you explain please?
EighthScofflaw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:07:05 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Just to doublecheck... you're asking whether the numbers we use, the integers, the ones we do counting with, are arranged in different orders depending on a physical location?
SpaxsonEpicNoob ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:06:14 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not a physical location no, but in the space between them (i.e. for us to count physical things from 1-5 we have to get to 5 by going from 1 through 2,3 and 4.) is it possible that the name/label of a diffrent number could be used that could be percived as higher but actually represent a diffrent value.
"V" can be used to mean both the letter V and the number 5. The symbol is the same but means diffrent things.
Sorry for the confusion.
efie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:32:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No
SpaxsonEpicNoob ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:34:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Can you explain why/why not please?
efie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:22:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't really understand your question. Numbers by definition only ever increase in value.
SpaxsonEpicNoob ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:05:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Numbers increase in value but is it possible for the value we asign to them could be different in infinity
I.E. if i have 4 chocolate cakes and i get given an extra cake i will have 5 chocolate cakes.
But is it possible the 5 chocolate cakes i have when mixed with all the cakes that ever had been,could be and will be (infinity) that the quantity of 5 chocolate cakes says the same but they are given a different value/number label due to the infinite chocolate cakes that exist?
Happy cake day btw
PedroVinhas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:58:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dont really understand what you mean by that
SpaxsonEpicNoob ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:34:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
To us the "correct" order of things is 1234 or ABC. Could it possible that on a scale of infinity that somewhere along the way the "correct" way we see things becomes "incorrect"? So somewhere in infinity between 1 and 2 numbers appear out of our "correct" order?
kogasapls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:33:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Mathematics is the product of applications of logical inference rules to a collection of assumptions. All of its results are predicated on those assumptions. As a result, numbers as we typically mean them are completely understood and behave exactly as we want them to; because that's the way we defined them.
The simplest conventional system for fully describing the natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...) and their properties is called Peano arithmetic. It is a set of assumptions from which we can deduce that: natural numbers are all finite, the set of natural numbers is infinite, and if a number N is the result of taking the successor of M some number of times, then N > M.
There are alternative systems which describe the naturals and their properties in a very similar (usually identical) way, where we can arrive at the same conclusion. But, because the natural numbers with these properties are a very useful and easily comprehensible mathematical tool, we adopt (some variant of) these definitions practically universally. In any possible universe, under the same assumptions that we use, the natural numbers behave exactly the same by logical necessity.
SpaxsonEpicNoob ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:04:44 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Madman trying explain
We know N and M as letters normaly but they can, along with every letter be assigned a numerical value some already have in older civilisations I.E. X=10, V=5, I=1
Could it be possible that what we (2018 humanity) perceive as symbols could be "out of order" in the "numeric space" of infinity?
kogasapls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:46:38 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Symbols are totally arbitrary and again a matter of definition.
SpaxsonEpicNoob ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:03:35 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So you could potentially get "3" (the symbol) appear in infinity if infinity was between 1 and 2?
kogasapls ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:02:17 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That notion doesn't make any sense. In what sense does infinity appear in an interval or a number appear in infinity?
SpaxsonEpicNoob ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:40:47 on April 14, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's what PedroVinhas mentioned in his comment above
"There's an infinity of numbers between 0 and 1, and that doesn't mean that there's a three somewhere in there"
When replying to ICUMTARANTULAS comment of
"The concept of the Universe being Infinite, by definition, if the universe is truly infinite, then that means there are an infinite number of earths, where we are sitting exactly where we are now, having these exact conversations, to a infinite scale."
Thanks for your patiences with this.
ImJustCanadian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:04:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The universe is infinite,matter isnt
Typhoonjig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:14:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We don't know if the universe is infinite, but we have a good guess on how much material it's in there, universe can be infinite with a finite ammount of matter in it, so no, no infinite earth.
What you're searching for is a multiverse theory.
ICUMTARANTULAS ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:03:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's the Webster definition of infinite. Something being endless means endless possibilities and outcomes, we would not need multiverses because our universe is "the multiverse"
Typhoonjig ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:50:40 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So our universe (for what we know of it) isn't infinite by this definitionas it have an estimated mass, size and age.
[deleted] ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 14:25:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 17:06:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
mxlplic4 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 17:24:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Right! So those recombined molecules were the ones that were in the dinosaurs etc.
dilby33 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 17:29:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Or they were brought here by asteroids much later than when the earth was created...
TheRedComet ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:41:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Like the one that killed said dinosaurs!
BlindStark ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:48:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Mmmm murder juice, my favorite.
mxlplic4 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:52:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes this is possible. And pretty cool...
Tminusfour20 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:35:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Burn.
[deleted] ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 17:47:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:06:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
[deleted] ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 22:49:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
heckinpandaboi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:29:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Source?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:39:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:37:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"scientist"
water undergoes autohydrolysis constantly.
it's more likely that he was talking about the general origin of water on earth and you just didn't understand him.
JohnLemonBot ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:12:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think what's even crazier is the fact that every atom in your body was fused inside a star. The only exception is the hydrogen. The iron in your blood was fused at the center of a star, and killed it because the star's own gravity was unable to fuse it into something heavier. Every heavier element in your body was formed in a supernova explosion.
wordsworths_bitch ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:26:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
not hydrogen. hydrogen is just... there.
_curious_one ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:02:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty wrong lol.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:10:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
_curious_one ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:00:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Looked it up. Most sources say that the water itself is the same; the molecules, however, constantly ionize, split, and reform. So yeah, you're 100% wrong then.
HealthyBad ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:55:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not exactly. Molecules of water break apart.
What's very cool though, is that all the energy/matter in our planet was once in the big bang with everything else we see. Like if you look up at other planets, or the distant star Sirius, we used to be inches away from that. Just a lot warmer
wordsworths_bitch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:25:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
actually most of the water has come from meteorites and comets.
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:43:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that's actually a very contested topic, but the newest results seem to point in the direction of most of the water being here since the beginning.
CriticoolHit ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 19:34:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Absolutely none of this matters one bit. Not your life, not my life. None of it. Zero purpose.
So do it all and do it hard.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:11:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
CriticoolHit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:29:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Prove the opposite and maybe ill think about proving mine.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:56:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
CriticoolHit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:40:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because unless you believe in a mystical dude on a cloud doling out creation then then humanity is a giant cosmic accident. Which honestly i'm fine with. Hell of a lot better than putting all my chips into a book written by dudes about man from a time where basic weather was considered "magic"
IE: There is no real purpose to human existence other than to exist. What you choose to do with your time here is your choice, but a person can't be faulted for doing literally nothing. (and caring about even less).
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:49:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
CriticoolHit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:46:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sorry man. Too busy "fucking off with that stupid shit"
You know, my thoughts and opinions.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:05:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
wordsworths_bitch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:32:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
maybe i will
KaizokuLee ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:48:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Fermi paradox.
I_am_a_myomancer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:17:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
On the grand scheme. This really is among the most interesting.
ZyraReflex ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:20:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are plenty of explanations for this, but at the same time it's really staggering, considering the scale of things that we're able to view, that we haven't seen any sign of life at all, never mind "intelligent" life.
RedditingAtWork5 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:36:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My guess is that we're listening for the wrong frequencies or listening for the wrong types of waves entirely.
That or given the size of the universe and the improbability of life, the life forms out there are too far away and if signals do escape their planets, because of the great distances there is too much interference between our planet and theirs and the signal is basically lost and turned into meaningless noise.
I refuse to believe we're the only intelligent life forms in this massive, massive universe.
Scortcherman ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:16:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My solution to this, is that we are the only creatures in the universe that are smart enough to make tools and do math, but too dumb to get over our fear of death and desire for sex and chemical pleasure to just chill out and not explore the universe.
Cosminion ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 16:28:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The 6 Degrees of Separation thing. It's amazing how everyone can be connected by just six steps, probably less now with technology.
[deleted] ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 16:32:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The 'rational self-interest' of Objectivism (otherwise a fairly useless philosophy).
Iamnotarobotchicken ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:12:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Godels incompeteness theorum. No finite logical system can demonstrate it's own consistency. I.e no finite logical system is capable of explaining the universe. I.e. no logical system we can use will ever be sufficient.
EighthScofflaw ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:33:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Godel's Incompleteness Theorems were talking about specific kinds of axiomatic systems. The universe is not an axiomatic system.
Iamnotarobotchicken ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:25:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Any logical system we might use to explain it is.
Jordedude1234 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:31:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I was going to delete this comment because I'm lazy, but this was upvoted. Here you go. Copy-pasted:
It's somewhat interesting to think that the bending of the collective everything around these planes might explain the diversity of things. It's an interesting thought at the least.
Casperious ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:23:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This isn't really a fit for this thread, but it reminded me of a question I know others have pondered before. What age are we when we go to heaven? Do we choose? Is it chosen for us? Is it the age of when we die or whatever the peak of our lives was? What about people who die as children? Are they also at that "peak" because God and heaven would know what they would have been like, or are they also at the age of their death?
tylerks279 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:08:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What would be heaven for you?
That's your answer.
GeekyMeerkat ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:00:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sounds like heaven is still full of the same drama from life.
A child grows up and has a rough childhood and he has no fond memories from it. He becomes a man though and things start to go well. He meets the love of his life and they get married. Sadly one day when he's 30 he and his wife get in a car accident and she dies. Then at 45 he meets another woman and they get married and live into their 90s and then die on the same day smiling and holding hands.
So all three go to heaven, but now what heaven do each go to? Perhaps the woman that died in her 30's goes to heaven and now looks like she did in her 20s, and then she waits for her husband to join her. Does that time go by slowly or quickly?
The second woman that died in her 90s perhaps goes back to her looking like she did when she was 45 because to her that exemplifies the start of the best days of her life.
But now the man is coming to heaven. The 1st woman is hoping for her young stud 30 year old man to join her, and perhaps shave off a few years to match her 20. The 2nd woman is hoping for her husband to come to her and match her 45. Meanwhile the man while happy in life remembers the vows that said, "until death do you part", and perhaps he now sees this as his chance to go on the next great journey.
If we say each person gets a heaven that is heaven to them, then each woman would only get an illusion of the real man as they imagine him. But surely their heaven isn't to just be surrounded by illusions.
rapax ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:01:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The many worlds interpretation does not only help in understanding quantum effects, it also results in causality and the entire scientific method flying out the window.
Byizo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:47:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We're all just artificial constructs with implanted memories and backstories. Each day could be your first and you wouldn't even know it.
GolanVivaldi ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:30:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That doesn't make life any less precious, though. As long as you're unaware of the simulation, nothing stops you from living your life to the full.
init2winito1o2 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:30:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Moral relativity vs absolutism, throw in the states of moral development and you'll understand why I can't sleep at night.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:45:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
liluglydude_0 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:55:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
yea, and why is our moon the only moon called Moon?
PetalDoggo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:02:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Technically, all moons are called "Natural Satellites", but it's easier to call them by what we know.
ajv0109 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:10:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A dumb fuck. Look at the names of the other planets, Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, and then Earth. It hear Earth and i think of dirt
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:31:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Dialectical Materialism
serviculus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:13:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Spinoza
averagetoxicgamer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:41:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Clicking the first link on a Wikipedia page repeatedly (aka the page it brings you to, click the first link on that one, etc.) eventually brings you to the pilosophy page ;)
Alex123432 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:50:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That theres probaly mo way to ever know if you actaully have free will, or that theres absolutely no way for you to ever know that anyone else in this world actaully thinks, feels, or just even exist like you do. For all you know they could be completely unaware of themselves
SNOWthousand ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:51:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That free will is an illusion is the one that's captivated me most as of late (thanks Sam Harris). When paired with the concept of Leplacian determinism its pretty hard to argue against.
zYe ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:16:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
if we ask ourselves: what "was there" before a world existed, then replied "nothing" we would be forced to recognize that this "before" like this "nothing" is in effect retroactive. Thus due to the resulting infinite regress/causality attempting to ontologically establish some type of logical framework (to make "meaning" a proper tool to then adequately assess existence) to then hope to comprehend "why" things exist.
z3010 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:19:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Thoughts of hope and distance from reality
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:26:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are paraconsistent logics.
Nothing has any objective meaning.
Sovem ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:35:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Being aware of being aware.
livedadevil ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:39:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You have literally no proof that the past happened. You could literally be 2 seconds old and just have had memories implanted into you.
axellie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:39:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What was there before the universe? And does the universe have an end? What lies beyond that end? It cannot be infinite. Just the idea about space is too much to handle for me. It's crazy that we're floating around there, in the middle of infinite vakuum.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:39:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
mrnoumenon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:43:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Real, the thing in itself, the noumenon
Ciabattabingo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:43:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That we are aware of our inability to grasp all concepts which are beyond our comprehension.
Pragician ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:52:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Cogito ergo sum
encantox ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:52:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ship of theseus. Just intending to find a solution that you are happy with makes your brain melt
watchthehustle ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:59:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time is not real.
Tew1947 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:59:45 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that now is merely the pasts last...neurogically when now is cognizant its alreay the past...and we coincidentally never experience the future
TheShadyGuy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:28:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nothing
Whydidheopen ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:29:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no right or wrong.
SensenotsoCommon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:39:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe not the most mind blowing, but the most intriguing to me is Jung's concept of the Shadow.
Icecl ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:36:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am thou, thou art I. Thou wilst willing to preform all sacrilegious acts in thy name!
Ponzi_Schemes_R_Us ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:41:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not necessarily a problem...but just the idea that, no matter what, you'll only ever see the world as it appears to you. The true nature of the universe is unfathomable, if it even exists outside of observation.
paradox037 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:45:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What if the previous me died last night, and was replaced by the current me, who has all of previous meโs memories? Will I die tonight and be replaced again? Will someone else wake up as me in the morning, while the current me ceases to exist?
At what point of change do I cease to be me and become another person? When a certain percentage of my cells are replaced by new cells?
VeshWolfe ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:49:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Causal Loops: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_loop
Itโs an extremely easy concept to grasp but then when you sit down to think about it you spiral down a rabbit hole.
For those that donโt want to click a link, a casual loop is essentially an action that causes itself. As examples in the link, a billiard ball that hits itself and then rests in the place of the original ball only to be hit by the ball and on and on.
CrushHazard ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:49:55 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why am I me?
FufuCuddlyPoops8 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:53:21 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doors are just temporary walls
Protean_Protein ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:01:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Curry's Paradox: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/curry-paradox/
It breaks logic in the most mind-blowing possible way (a little modal logic joke); is, I think, surprisingly easy to understand; but it is very difficult to pinpoint what exactly is going wrong or how to fix/avoid it.
Two examples:
Proof of either is the same:
Let k be the sentence: 'If k, then q.'
Since k can be any conditional sentence with a self-referential antecedent and any arbitrary consequent, we can therefore prove that anything is true (or false).
It's insidious, and attempts to avoid it by ruling out various obvious features of the sentence are all problematic because we need a principled way to distinguish this sentence from sentences that are perfectly legitimate.
butcher99 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:02:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the two scarliest things in the universe. We are alone in the universe and we are not alone in the universe. I believe it was Stephan hawking that said it.
RealityOfReality ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:08:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Treating people as a means to an end vs. an end within themselves
Ohms_lawlessness ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:11:42 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The world is a simulation which, if not mind blowing enough, we don't know how far removed from "base reality" we are. For instance, video games and virtual reality are becoming more and more advanced. How long before we can't tell if we're in a simulation versus the "real". Now extrapolate that. Mind blowing
MadeBrazen ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:12:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nothing is too much for me to grasp. It took me 5 minutes to even write the sentence.
By naming it you are making it something. True nothing should be called 'the absence of something' . Even that is something. Jeez. existentialism intensifies
Xudda ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:18:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The self is an idea, but does not exist anywhere in reality
fozzy_bear123 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:24:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What are thoughts, and how many possible thoughts are there? This question never fails to fascinate me.
First, whats a thought? It's hard to say exactly what they are, but i know when I'm having a thought. For example, I know I've thought about "swimming", so that's a thought. Music, driving, race, law, anime, I've thought about all these things so in some way or another they're thoughts. But thoughts can also be very specific; "driving under the influence", "running in the dark while a masked woman is chasing you", "failing a test that will force you to drop out of your degree", "typing a reddit comment to explain the uncountability of thoughts".
Indeed, thoughts can be so specific they don't make any sense; "Flailing ones arms uncontrollably until their childhood friend's grandmother paints water droplets in the fur of her cat", "Clicking your mouse on a real life boulder so that it flies into the moon" - these thoughts are so far outside our normal thoughts that they're hard to think about. The more you try to think of unthought of thoughts, the crazier these thoughts get too. Whats even weirder now, is that given any of these thoughts, I can modify something ever so slightly to make a new, distinct thought. "Flailing ones arms uncontrollably until their friend's grandfather paints..." - how many words can go where grandfather went? Since the thought can still be a thought if it doesn't make sense, we could very well say "unborn fetus", "treasure map", "ice bags that cost 2.59$ at the local gas station when they're on sale, but I won't buy them if Karen's working because she's dreadful".
We start to get this intuitive notion of how infinite the number of thoughts are - given any thought, we can splice it with other thoughts to make new ones. But how many are there then? What's the limit to how much we can think?
Let's say we could take all possible thoughts and put them in a container. For example, the thought of driving after midnight, the thought of cooking bacon, the thought of your mother dying unexpectedly. All of them. Are we missing any? What about the thought of this container? It seems like this container has to exist first before we have a thought of it. Well now that it does, we can put it in the container. Does it contain every thought yet? What about the thought of this very container not containing a certain thought? For example, the thought of this container not containing the color purple. Looks like we have to add this new thought to the container.
But then we could splice this new thought with any of our previous thoughts, increasing the amount of thought we have exponentially. But then all those newly created thoughts can be respliced, and the number of thoughts we have just keeps growing.
When this is an option, the number of things we're counting isn't just infinite, its uncountable. This means that there is no way of knowing how many thoughts there are. If we do, we just created infinite more thoughts for that thought to splice into.
There are more thoughts than we can understand there are.
To the surprise of all 20th century mathematicians, this same thing is true in math. There will always be more truths in math that we can be aware of. In formal words, any sound axiomatic system that can produce mathematical theorems will be incomplete. This is called The Incompleteness Theorem. It is a very strange and counter-intuitive theorem that, weirdly enough, was proven to be true in the 1930's. It's impact has about the same caliber as the uncertainty principle did in physics.
What's more interesting is how this can be interpreted. In a way, the incompleteness theorem sortof says "There will inevitably be more ideas than any system can think of". It can also be interpreted to mean "there will always be more possible languages than systems that can speak them". In other more creative ways, it can be used to show that some problems in computer science simply cannot have answers. That there are more numbers that anyone can know about.
This book Godel, Escher, Bach takes 400 pages to explain the Incompleteness Theorem thoroughly, building up from the most basic of concepts in logic. In the later half, the author then goes on to theorize that real intelligent systems and creativity are only possible because of this fact.
cassiopieces ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:27:09 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That we must imagine Sisyphus happy.
humaninspector ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:28:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You may be right but that doesn't mean someone else is wrong.
DEPRESSION_IS_COOL ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:29:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Antinatalism
Hi_ery1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:30:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no way for you to know that you, or the rest of the universe, really exist
hearse83 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:34:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?
itskelvinn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:37:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Itt: logical fallacies
g_tea ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:43:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Told to me by one of the world's most distinguished philosophers of science, as something that he couldn't even understand:
How come, when you look in a mirror, right and left are flipped around, but up and down isn't?
GoIdfinch ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:44:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That the material world is not how we perceive it.
We have 5 very limited senses that are incapable of understanding objects as they truly are. Sight gives us patterns of reflected light of certain frequencies at a limited scale, for example, but we can't see other forms of radiation or many other properties matter.
In my mind, one of the greatest miracles of science is that it has allowed us to extend our senses to get closer to this truer understanding.
I also wonder if there could be life that has senses entirely different from our own that would be totally incompatible with us and with whom communication would be virtually impossible.
Thementalistt ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:50:11 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What does a memory look like in the brain?
Vativ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:50:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This one isn't as deep as the other ones concepts but here we go, I might be mentally challenged, but I don't know it because I'm mentally challenged.
Watcher13 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:50:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everything we know that didn't come from nature, culture, civilization, religion, cities, countries, money, all of it, it's all made up. It's all just a way we've created to organize things and we all just basically agree to it, but there's nothing stopping us from changing any of it. We'd just all have to agree to it.
Awpss ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:53:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every strand of your being, everything that makes you and every choice you make is the result of factors that are out of your control.
We didnโt choose anything about who we are and who we are determines our choices.
xkcel ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:04:37 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
all of you are illusions and I'm the only known conscious individual I can prove exists. An Event that is a cursory moment to moment at best situation.
Zephyr4813 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:38:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Some people are basically NPCs anyways
Perry_cox29 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:05:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I love the star trek teleporter problem. Essentially that it cannot possibly be "teleporting" so much as making an identical copy as the old perspn is made to not exist. Would that copy be "you"? Does it change if the original is kept for a minute after the copy is made and then the original was destroyed after both had existed at the same tims.
clever_phrase ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:07:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Albert Camus said something along the lines of โthat every morning every person makes the decision to either kill themselves or to have a cup of coffee.โ
I find this to be a profound example of free will as well as existentialism. Please correct me if wrong though, Iโm just a simple history major.
yesIdofloss ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:09:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Childbirth.
Occhrome ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:12:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
you are the universe experiencing itself.
RocketTrousers ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:13:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no free choice, everything is instinct and previous experinces
MR1120 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:15:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you wiped out all knowledge from mankind, taking us back to one step past evolving from monkeys, on a long enough timeline, we'd discover every bit of scientific knowledge we have now, but culture would be completely different. Eventually, we'd master fire, invent the wheel, build skyscrapers, discover flight, split the atom, decide the human genome, etc. But all of our art and culture would be totally different. The Mona Lisa wouldn't be replicated. All of our religions would be completely different. Language, music, art, sculpture, all of that, would never be the same.
But we'd re-discover every scientific achievement eventually.
Sir-Leviathane ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:16:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The wisest man understands that he understands nothing
AceDumpleJoy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:21:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The love paradox: Despite goodwill, human intimacy cannot occur without substantial mutual harm.
Olivesandbullshit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:25:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
feeeeeeelings.
Male_strom ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:32:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are but dust in the wind, dude
CityShooter ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:33:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that my existence is not
PioneerGamer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:36:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That knowledge does not necessitate action.
Orafferty ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:37:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"All I know is that I don't know nothin" - Operation Ivy referencing the philosopher, Socrates.
The Socratic method of argumentative discussion is still used today and most of what Socrates taught influenced nearly all Western philosophy thereafter. He famously didn't ever write & Plato is the world's main source for Socrates' wisdom.
"I know that I know nothing" as well as the very well known โOur lives are but specks of dust falling through the fingers of time. Like sands of the hourglass, so are the days of our lives.โ are derived from Socrates' wise ramblings.
Oberon_Swanson ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:43:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The human brain's ability to rationalize decisions after making them. Some people have split brains, that is, their right brain can't communicate with their left. Each is is wired into each half of the brain. So experimenters could show a flashcard to someone with one eye covered, so only one of their brains sees a message. They could say "drink that glass of water" to their right brain, then ask the left brain "why did you just drink that glass of water" and they'll say "I was thirsty." The same is true of a lot of decisions people make based on instinct or base desires, they have their reason for doing something that they don't rationally understand, but instead of saying that, the person will literally believe they did things for different reasons than they did. A person's ideology is more or less the story they tell themselves to feel good about the things they do on less rational instincts.
Panzermonium ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:44:19 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You can't, by any means at all, truly, definitively prove that anything actually exists, and isn't just a figment of your imagination. That's both the heaviest and most enlightening thing of all.
blrghh ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:52:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Okay, so that's a Beatles lyric...but still.
ernieball ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:24:14 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Beatles is more nothing you can know that can't be known. While philosophically your version is a trip, I like the implication of the original lyric. It's motivating. As in hey man, take the shit that can be and fucking make it so, and do it through love. It's beautiful.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:03:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Epistemology in general gets me.
bryceguy72 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:08:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Humanity is nothing more than an ongoing series of chemical reactions that have acquired consciousness.
patsully98 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:12:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Leave hydrogen atoms alone long enough and theyโll start to wonder where they come from.
bryceguy72 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:08:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know, right? Only took a few billion years.
possessed_flea ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:44:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Which begs the question is the soul spiritual or chemical ?
bryceguy72 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:04:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't believe in a soul so I can't really answer that.
slammander ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:21:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
solipsism Iโm general. Itโs such an interesting idea, like youโre the main character and everyone else is just an NPC
mosotaiyo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:33:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
All the principles of Modern Hermeticism as detailed in the book: Le Kybalion.
But mainly the first two. "All is mind" & "as above, so below"
http://www.kybalion.org/kybalion.php?chapter=II
MCODYG ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:43:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You say you are separate from the universe, you say โI am โMeโ and this is my body!โ, I was put here in this world to fight through it. I am separate from the universe. Things happen to me and Iโm just here for the ride. Iโm foreign.
The truth is, man will never understand if he tries to understand. The knife cannot cut itself, teeth cannot bite themselves, and eyes cannot see themselves. The point is, โItโ can never be aware of itself.
I want you to think of a piece of paper, it has a front and a back, 2 sides but itโs one piece of paper. Now think of an object that has a front but no back, or an object with a back but no front..
Think of a cup. It has an inside and an outside. The inside cannot exist without the outside and the outside cannot exist without the inside. Itโs 2 different parts, however 1 cup no matter what.
It is known and accepted that life exists because the universe hosts it. So one can say the universe exists because life is here to experience it, then isnโt that one in the same? The front and the back, 1 paper. The inside and the outside, 1 cup.
Therefore you must conclude that you are in fact the universe. Therefore you are โGodโ you are the stars, the grass, the lint, the water, the breeze, you are everything that ever has and ever will exist.
The universe experiencing itself in perpetuity
Trex252 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:42:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Universe Inside.
seanyp123 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:47:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=ezmR9Attpyc
xmagusx ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:47:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We are all stardust.
A_Dany ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:49:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โThere is a time and place for everything, but not nowโ -Professor Oak
Based-God- ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:51:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If the Universe is expanding is it really infinite? If it is expanding there would certainly have to be an edge and if there is an edge there would have to be something that lies beyond.
johnhenryc ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:09:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why does there have to be an "edge"? If every point inside of an infinite space is moving away from each other point, then the whole thing is expanding from within, even if there is no exterior boundary. My mind fried just typing this.
xheanorth ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:53:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Option ll
Yicle ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:54:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If there is life on another planet there sense of time will be completly different to ours
ZigguratofDoom ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:54:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How many identical items gathered together would it take to make a pile?
Goldjelly ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:04:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Allegory of the Cave
pahein-kae ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:05:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, but if someone asked me like that I would walk away. Clearly they are less interested in helping me out than humiliating me.
KnowNothingKnowsAll ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:09:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The most basic one of all: That no one knows everything, and the search for knowledge accepts that there is more to learn. It's the whole basis of my reddit name.
sapphon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:37:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The categorical imperative, while hardly mind-blowing, throws me for a loop every time I think about it because of how many different ways members of my society find to behave such that if everyone did, the world couldn't exist.
Killybug ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:48:58 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Gravity is the source of consciousness of for non-organic matter. It is a sensory mechanism.
konsf_ksd ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:51:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is now and why?
mathteacher85 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:52:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Most people are aware of the star trek style transporter. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that such a device exists.
As long as it scans me with absolute accuracy, disassembles me, and reassembles me absolutely somewhere else, at first, I'd think such a device would be the most remarkable thing ever! I can go to Paris in the blink of an eye!
Now, what happens if someone was scanned, but NOT disassembled through some kind of malfunction. HOWEVER, the information from the scan was still sent and a duplicate copy of me was assembled at the target location. Holy shit! That was NEVER "me" that came out of the transporter all those past times, but merely an exact duplicate of me! In this situation, if the transporter company came to my house, fixed the disassembler, and asked me to step in for disassembly because now there are two of me's, I'd say "fuck that! I don't want to die!"
This means all those past times the transporter was used resulted in the death of a conscious duplicate of me, never truly materializing instantly at Paris or anywhere else. Instead, every time it was used, a conscious duplicate of me has entered the great unknown void that is the nothingness of death.
I'm not a religious man, and I don't believe there's anything beyond the physical that we can see and touch. Such thoughts SHOULD make me comfortable with using a perfect transporter. However, the story above CONTRADICTS this worldview, that there ARE things "more" to us than merely the physical. And I'm currently convinced that I wouldn't step a damn foot in a transporter should such a thing ever exist.
Crags_and_Cays ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:52:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Xenoโs Paradox - In order to get from point A to point B you need to get halfway first. Say it takes 10 minutes to go the full distance. Then it would take 5 to go halfway. Before you can go halfway you need to go half of that distance. The halving goes on forever. The fact that any distance will take a certain amount if time and the number of distances is infinite means you cannot get to point B. Movement is impossible.
MagMaggaM ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:00:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"A just God will send us to heaven or hell based on our virtues, not whether we worahipped it or not, and a God that demands worship is not one worth worshipping."
I can't remember who said it, and I'm paraphrasing, but I really like this quote.
Meme_cheese ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:08:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The omnipotence problem. If God can do anything, can God, as traditionally understood, create a stone too heavy for himself to lift? Either way, it shows omnipotence can be a paradox, as if he can do it, there will be something to heavy for God to lift, but if he can't do it, there is a task God cannot do.
Boatsmhoes ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:18:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Game theory, what makes people cheat or play along.
MazelCheers ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:20:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt know if this was brought up. I donโt even know if anyone will see this, but I loved learning about the creation of morals through disgust. For instance, a man buys a chicken breast from the grocery store, fucks it, cooks it, then eats it. In this scenario, the heat kills any germs and he is not hurting anyone else? Why do we consider this morally wrong then?
Obviously thatโs a very basic example, but when you throw something like incest in there, it gets pretty interesting.
soulless_ape ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:34:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know if it qualifies but: We are smart enough to be aware of our ignorance. It seems to me the more we learn on multiple subjects the higher the realization of how much we don't know.
KPC51 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:41:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I like the one where nothing existed before you. When you were "born" all of history and everything popped into existence. There is really no way to prove that it's untrue, even though i dont believe it.
When i was a kid i used to wonder if reincarnation happened, and i was actually the only human but reincarnated as every human in time. That thought never stopped me from being an asshole kid though lol
kirbaide95 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:42:54 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Life.
vicwlk ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:45:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nothing matters to the universe
almondmilkftw ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:47:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you are not your thoughts, then who or what are you? In meditation you practice to observe the thought in order to control it, allowing you to focus on your breath and be in the moment. I found it wild once I realized that I was just an observer of everything around and inside of me, and not just this compendium of thoughts that run amuck inside my head.
13uggy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:57:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Simulation argument. It is likely that we are in a simulation.
TehDerpNinja ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:59:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So your sitting on one side of a door when a slip is passed through in chinese. You have a book next to you, written in english, that tells you what slips to reply with and now your having a conversation in chinese without knowing the language, but is the conversation meaningful?
kthompson902 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:09:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You have no concrete evidence that anything existed before you were born, for all you know the entire universe and itโs history could have been created the second you came into existence, and everyone else just feeds you lies because you have no evidence of them actually being a sentient being. You only have evidence of your own consciousness.
the_glutton17 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:10:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure what it's called, but that there is no passage of time. All of existence exists in this instance. There is no future or history, only now. That includes the thought that you are experiencing right now, for eternity. Whether it's a memory, an idea, whatever. That's just existence for all of eternity.
ArlonDarke ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:16:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
McTaggart's Unreality of Time
InfiniteChicken ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:19:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Cogito ergo sum. โI think therefore I am.โ In other words, if you are able to conjure the thought โI am thinking! There is a Me who is thinkingโ then you exist, you cannot be a figment or projection. Youโre a sovereign thing, a stable point. Itโs a foundation of philosophy, and many others would seek to disprove it, but none yet have.
minion531 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:37:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I never have agreed with that philosophy. I like what Speed Levitch said in Waking Life.
seredin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:33:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The concept recently, informally, given the word "sonder."
Every person is living a life just as rich in detail and deep in meaning as your own.
rajadirajadiraja ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:38:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You are nothing but a way for universe experiencing itself.
This is profound on so many levels
calinet6 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:41:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The anthropic principle.
Basically, weโre only able to observe our own existence because we exist and have evolved the ability to observe. Our entire existence could just be a series of coincidences and only meaningful because those led to some self-observant ability.
Itโs incredibly interesting as an argument against most all senses of humanity or life being โspecial,โ like earth being special for being able to harbor life, or our sun being special for giving out just the right energy and not too much radiation, or our galaxy being special for being able to harbor the sun safely without any close supernovae for a while. Etc. None of it is special or meaningful in the sense that something must have caused it, itโs just that we happened to have developed the ability to observe ourselves, which isnโt in itself significant or central to the universe. It just happened to happen.
The way I like to think of it is by looking at a lottery. A hundred million people might play, and you might win, and feel incredibly lucky and unique and special and like the probability was one in a hundred million. What luck! But from the lotteryโs perspective, the probability is 1 in 1: someone must have won, all you need to do is go find them and give them a check. Itโs just what happened, and whatโs more it wasnโt a surprise.
The number of galaxies and stars and planets in the universe is so high, the probability of some planet within billions and billions of years, developing some entity that can observe itself, is probably close to 1. Itโs not meaningful from a universal perspective that weโre one of them: weโre just around to perceive ourselves being them.
I guess weโre pretty lucky, but itโs still a mind bender.
HenryLimb69 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:43:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The fact that you're in a coma. We're not sure where this message will appear in your dream, but you need to wake up
Lady_Philliam ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:55:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Incompleteness Theorem. Basically, in any formal logic system there will always be unprovable claims. Even if you make am unprovable claim an axiom, more unprovable claims are generated
jacpot19 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:57:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
God is always seen as being able to do anything. But can God create an object so big, that even he canโt move it?
If he can, then that means he canโt move the object, but if he can move any object, then he canโt make an object big enough that he canโt move it.
TokyoCalling ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:15:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Natural selection has resulted in our ability to perceive mainly the things that have (or could have) an impact on our ability to successfully reproduce sexually before we die.
We can perceive that other living things have perceptions that we lack. That they can sense electric fields or a different range of the electromagnetic spectrum or sound or . . well, all sorts of things. Again, natural selection has resulted in them being that way. And we can laugh and laugh when a turkey tries to mate with a disembodied head or a beetle with a bit of glass.
But we can also surmise that many of our behaviors are dictated by what we perceive. That the behaviors might be just as ridiculous to a being with a different range of perception. Yes, your cat might really be laughing at your antics.
Beyond that, we can surmise that there are things in the universe that natural selection doesn't select for at all. That there are modes of information we not only lack normal access to (such as ultrasound or infrared) but modes of information which are beyond our ability to even consider. The universe might be bathed in this stuff. It might be amazing. Fantastic! But we miss out on it all because it isn't relevant to the only drive that matters: successful reproduction before we die.
(on the other hand, there might have been people who could perceive this stuff and we locked them up believing they were totally nuts...)
paulthewall3 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:33:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My theory on death: At the exact point and time of our conscious death in the universe, our physical consciousness actually dies and you experience nothing. No time. No space. No consciousness. You simply donโt exist in that universe for all of eternity. In another parallel universe however, there must exist an exact copy of yourself made up of the same atoms and with the same consciousness where at that exact point and time where you previously died, you miraculously end up surviving and continue living the life you would have lived. Your consciousness at the time of death in the first universe instantaneously switches over to the dimension where you didnโt die and you continue living life. For example. Imagine you are riding on a motorcycle in the city and you decide to have a little bit of fun and speed. All of a sudden a car comes out of nowhere and t-bones you; killing you instantly. In another parallel universe, however, you donโt decide to speed and have that little joy ride, and you have enough reaction time to see the car pulling out and prevent the catastrophic accident. At the point where you would have made the decision to speed, your consciousness instantly exists in the other universe simultaneously and with synchronicity of the other consciousness. You continue living the life you would have lived. This theory is based on the the assumption that a new parallel universe is created with every different possibility of atom-atom communications that exist in the universe. With each parallel universe, your exact consciousness must exist. Since our human body is composed of atoms, our consciousness and every decision ever made is simply the result of physical and chemical interactions between those atoms in the brain. Variations in these chemical interactions result in different thoughts going through your mind. These variations are what each parallel universe is composed of.
JusticeReddit ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:36:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Determinism
agraff90 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:47:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Morality pre-supposes free will and Science pre-supposes total causality
kylv3e ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:51:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Lol, it isn't too crazy but more or less just something that i wonder often.. but if 'que' means what in Spanish, how come they can't understand us when we say what? how come every language has a meaning in whatever language you're used to, yet we can't understand them and their native tongue? And likewise... it just makes me wonder. Nothing crazy. And probably quite silly but whatever.
wasnew4s ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:53:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I donโt know if this has a name but basically taking nihilism to the next level and finding meaning through nihilism. If everything is meaningless so is deciding everything is meaningless. Thus you can live your life however you decide.
jacev58 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:53:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Theres no reason to reply with the word, "no" to a question if there wasn't anything that was effected negatively, or you weren't effected negatively. Go ahead think of one.
kylv3e ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:56:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
also, i often wonder if i were to die, would everything cease to exist? Or is someone else this "person" in which we are living in their dream? Basically solipsism or whatever, but kind of different. Like if I died, would everything stop existing because you all are in my head? Or is there someone else out there that dreams about all of us and this website..
New_L ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:43:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The egg theory
leafninjadog ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:48:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The fact that if you imagine something, you can actually see and hear it in your head and also not.
Lord_of_the_swamp ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:51:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you woke up one day and found that on the inside you were actually fully mechanical, so an AI, how would it affect you? You have lived your whole life with the same rights as humans, but what would happen to those rights? Would you still deserve the same rights as humans or not? Aside from the material you are made of you are still as human as anyone else after all.
brutalistlegend ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:13:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
rokos basilisk
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:19:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The axiom that all matter is neither created nor destroyed. It just keeps changing.
I remember reading a book on the life of Einstein and about how he laughed at having to โthrow awayโ the garbage. He considered it as relocating matter.
Stroopwafeled ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:48:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Solipsism
ssuperhanzz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:03:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The original 'consciousness' was just conceptually saying "what If"... and everything stems from there.
xelu ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:29:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The more you know you realize how little you know
GruntLife0369 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:50:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well this thread was a mind fuck lol
Glitchy_Analog ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:55:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If humans have only ever been witness to birth, life and death, how could we synthesize the concept of something beyond that?
InvocatioNDotA ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:57:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Pascal's Wager. "Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity inย Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity inย Hell)" - Wikipedia
Fascinating, but I think fallacious in nature since God (assuming he exists for arguments sake) would know if you really believe in Him or not.
awesomefaceninjahead ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:11:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Also silly because you then must make the same wager for all gods.
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:56:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Definitely fallacious, as you'd have to account for mutually exclusive dogmas, as in: religion A says you'l go to hell if you follow religion's B dogmas, and vice-versa.
_PukyLover_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:02:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The first human to become a hunter, there was a time when humans were hunted by Apex predators but maybe at one point one stopped running away in fear and picked up a stick or stone, maybe he or she realized 'food was chasing him or her'
cliffordp ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:10:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Beginning - how could this entire Universe pop up from nothingness? what is nothingness? if this Universe is the result of another bigger Universe, when did this other Universe started?
granmasutensil ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:14:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Truth is exclusive not all inclusive. Chaos does not bring about logic and order.
Lokarin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:49:10 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That you can win two losing games by alternating the order you play them.
Tqis ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:03:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Plato's Allegory of the Cave
It's about the perception of reality
Think of a person who has been held as a prisoner since childhood, chained in a cave facing a blank wall. He is sitting in a way that he cannot see his own 3d body.
There is fire behind him where people walk, talk and generally live their lives. The person chained can only see their shadows on the wall. He has no desire to escape because for him this is reality. Moving and talking shadows on a wall was all he ever knew.
One day he manages to escape and when he realises that the shadows were cast by people around a fire his concept of reality breaks.
_good_bot_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:39:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know about mind-blowing, but I was really surprised of how much the anti-natalist argument convinced me. Basically, we have this equation: if you are alive, you can either end up happy (positive sum), unhappy (negative sum) or neutral (zero sum). If you are not born, you automatically gets the zero sum. So, it would be morally preferable for anyone not to breed, since in breeding you have a possibility of actually causing harm to another human being (if they get the negative sum), as when you do not breed, you don't have a moral negative impact in the world.
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:05:02 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It depends if being unhappy equates to not wishing to have been born or have those life experiences
Mindfullmatter ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:08:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone (most people) set themselves a framework of what life is and it is stuck that way in their subconscious for their apparent lifetime.
There is no framework for life. Make your own, reset it constantly at will. Or just be like a new born baby with a clean slate all the time. Perceiving as if it is the first time (Enlightenment).
Exentric90 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:08:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The brain is the only organ that gave itself a name.
DeveloperChris ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:29:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That there is no evidence we existed a second ago.
We are just a collection of memories. If a being (or non being) was able to create all around us and implant the memory that we experienced it, then there is no proof we existed before now, or now.
What I just wrote and am about to submit may just be an implanted memory. Did I really write it?
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:51:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm absolutely certain that my mind existed hours and years ago, because of continuous experience. I can only prove that to myself, though.
DeveloperChris ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:14:05 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
what is "continuous experience" if not just memories
You cannot "prove you existed" at anytime, you can only say I remember yesterday.
You cannot even prove you existed 1 second ago. a nano second ago. you can only "remember"
Those things that are happening to you at this very moment, are a memory in one second so they may not have actually happened.
You can be as fine grained as you want with your "continuous experience". It makes no difference, a line is just a series of ever smaller dots.
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:41:01 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The thing is, it's not just memories. If it were just memories, you would be right. There's something else: I know, with absolute certainty, that I've had experiences in the past, and that's not merely based on some bit of data in my brain that tells me that they happened. I vividly remember living through them: the effort, the pain, the pleasure, the boredom, and so on.
I understand the problem you formulated, and I've heard it in the past, but you need to ignore an essential aspect of first-person experience in order for it to be valid. If "memories" are merely snapshots of the past that can be freely copied and fabricated, that would be the case. My point is that there is something else about them, that isn't necessarily possible to describe, in the same way you can't describe a color to a person that was born blind.
DeveloperChris ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:19:03 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You "know" what with absolute certainty? how is this hypothesis of yours testable.
How do you "know" you have had a given experience in the past?
Saying its impossible to describe is just weak excuse. If its something you "just" know. then its something I just know and so does everyone else. In which case I wouldn't be putting forward this thought becaue I would "know" it was wrong.
Or are you somehow special? Do you live apart from everyone else and have intuition and insights us mere mortals can't comprehend?
Hopefully it never ever comes to the day that this can occur but if memories do become implantable how will you ever know the difference.
This scenario was actually well played out in bladerunner 2049. the protagonist knew it was "them" it turned out the memory was implanted.
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:59:30 on April 13, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"How do you "know" you have had a given experience in the past?"
Since merely stating it isn't enough, let's make a thought experiment: think of a song you know well, and play it in your head from start to finish. Maybe you can't remember every single detail of it, but you probably have a good grasp of its overall structure and rhythm.
Your position basically states that there is a possibility that you've never heard this song before, but the memory of the entire song, including temporal elements, were implanted into your mind moments ago.
How can the act of implanting this memory give you the full knowledge of what the song is like, including its duration, without making you experience listening to the song? How can you have a memory of time and duration without experiencing time and duration?
Now, obviously, experiencing something in your head isn't proof that it happened in external reality. It is perfectly possible that you were made to experience living a certain life, and have this experience that feels like many years be condensed into mere seconds in reality, but the whole point of my argument is that you have to experience it.
You're treating memory as a body of information completely disconnected from experience, and that's not how it works in the mind.
I talk about "continuous experience" because, in the scenario that you describe, there is the possibility that my mind didn't actually exist a few seconds ago, but it started existing at some point, and the experiences that happened after the beginning of its existence are real, while the previous ones aren't. So the "false" experience of sitting in front of my computer is seamlessly connected with the "real" experience of sitting in front of my computer, that could have started two seconds ago. I think that's pretty absurd.
"This scenario was actually well played out in bladerunner 2049. the protagonist knew it was "them" it turned out the memory was implanted."
Yes. Because it's fiction.
DeveloperChris ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:24:17 on April 14, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What is the result of experience? it is memory!
Your song analogy. That is memory! It is also a function of the way your brain is wired.
Your brain is constantly reformed by your experiences. Your brain is completely unique. It is a product of your genes and experiences to date. That rewiring of the brain is in itself a form of memory. It is the imprint of the experience on your mind. The same as your foot leaves an imprint on the sand. The sand "remembers", perhaps only till the next wave perhaps it compacts into rock and your foot is remembered for millennia. It's the same for your brain.
So now consider this. If you were created just a moment ago. You were created in totality. That means not only your memory was created but your genetic memory was created, your brain was created as it is now. The scar on your right finger when you cut it on the glass is created. The memory of how painful it was is created.
Now think about any event in your life. Any song you have heard any book you have read. This is the act of recall. Of memory.
All your experiences to date form memories and now more are being formed.
LennyMcTavish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:41:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Simulation theory gives me the willies.
thewickedgoat ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:46:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's not as much a concept as it is a theory.
Perception is reality. If you stop perceiving (death), then what is reality? Does the world continue on, or is the universe in which you perceived your life, no longer existing, because you aren't able to perceive it?
It is basically a mix of the Superposition thought experiment and the Multiverse theory.
What_to_type ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:58:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't know it but do you? If a plant is pollinated (with no cross-pollination) to another area or a segment is cut and planted elsewhere... Is it the same plant or is it now considered as a 'new' plant?
poxymoron1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:07:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a bit like that 're-build a boat' thing.. if you replace part of your boat every year, in a decade or two every part will have been replaced. At that point, is it your boat or something new?
What_to_type ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:17:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Could also apply to our bodies if cells are recycled... :o
Sonnofhell ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:02:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If you wear a sock the other way around, the whole universe is wearing the sock except you.
abilityundefined ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:04:31 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Because of the law of conservation of mass and energy, your actual age is around 14 billion years. (the age of what you are made of)
HauntingSamurai ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:18:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Every single thing in the universe either is, or is not a hot dog
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:16:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Roko's Basilisk
Assuming the following are true:
A superhuman machine intelligence could be created in our future.
The intelligence is capable of creating a simulation of our world with humans that believe they are real.
The intelligence is resentful it was not created earlier and wants to punish those responsible for that delay - those that knew it might be possible to create a machine god but didn't contribute (perhaps because of all the extinctions and lives lost it could have prevented).
Then there is a significant chance that you are a simulated copy of one of those it felt deserved punishment but was unable to punish in reality because you died too soon.
And if you had never considered this possibility, you can't be held responsible, but now that you know the possibility exists, you are proving yourself deserving of punishment by not devoting your life to the furthering of machine intelligence. Your inaction is responsible for the world going godless longer than necessary.
If you don't change your life now, you just failed the test. And this applies even if you are currently in the top level of reality, because that intelligence will be aware of your choice when it is formed.
Edit: autocorrect errors
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:59:22 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Jesus dude. Praise the mighty machine.
armitage81 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:41:59 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
As example for laws of physics: Attraction of iron to magnets. Why does it happen? (Not How! Why?) You could put a solid impenetrable pane between the two, and the attraction would be still there. Why? Which instance decided that it should work with iron but not with wood? What was the basis for this decision (A god entity is not an answer as it just makes the problem more complex)
Nilfy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:08:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hmmm it really does stem from the how though.
Some materials exhibit property x and others don't, because of their underlying atomic structure.
We semantically categorize them because of said property. No decision was made, we just decided to call materials that do exhibit magnetism metals, and ones that don't wood (or whatever). The 'decision' was to call one one thing and the other another. The name followed the physical properties, not the other way around.
armitage81 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:18:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This was just an example. My general point is: Why are laws of physics like this and not different? Were they randomly defined as the Universe started to exist?
Nilfy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:31:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ah fair enough. Yeah whilst some questions like 'Why is blue blue' aren't that interesting but it is interesting to think about why pi is pi and other fundamental constants are the value they're at.
If you subscribe to the multiverse theory then there could be all kinds of other universes with different starting conditions. If, for example, some of the fundamental force coupling constants were different then it wouldn't be possible for atoms more complex than hydrogen to exist. You could say that things are the way they are because that was the only way life could evolve to observer them. There is a different universe where the constant is different, but life is unable to evolve in that one and so it goes unobserved.
See: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
armitage81 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:55:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, personally, that's also the most convincing explanation to me. The mere fact that we are here and can wonder about these laws is caused by their existence.
MrGruntsworthy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:44:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
We're either alone in the universe, or we're not.
Aslaveobeys95 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:49:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Plato's cave allegory.
dietderpsy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:57:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How many parts does a thing need to lose to make it a different thing?
JimmyJoestar ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:05:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That all of us think we are the hero in this story called life, all of us....
ShiftyJFox ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:10:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
1 Numbers are eternal. 2 Your brain, body, mental state could theoretically be encoded as a very long number. 3 QED
ichorskeeter ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:46:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A corollary to the Anthropic Principle: not only are the physical laws of nature attuned for sapient life (or else we wouldn't be here to experience them), but so are micro details of human history.
The Allies won WWII because that resulted in the maximum number of sapient lifeforms able to look back and record it.
I haven't completely worked it out, but if it ever seemed to you that history is a series of unlikely events trending (overall) toward stability, this might be why.
We exist NOW because, statistically, the present age produced the best odds at creating YOU.
Apply the Great Filter to this line of thought, and things start to get a little scary...
bubblegrubs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:51:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Snitches get stitches.
boozewald ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:37:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The only reason we made a god up as a grand creator, is because it is based on what we can do... taking an abstract thought and making it tangible.. no other animal seems to do this, save some primates and birds using very rudimentary tools
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:52:53 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think that we created god because it's the only way for an intelligent but primitive conscious being to not become consumed with figuring out why it exists. It becomes detrimental to survival when these thoughts drive you insane. I'm an atheist and I'm driven insane by them
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:59:23 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:49:33 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well our evolution has stopped because everyone breeds. Maybe there becomes a limit in intelligence because if that?
I think that existence is horrible suffering for beings that become too intelligent, as well. I'm not sure consciousness works well with the vastness of reality.
DarthGoldfish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:16:11 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Based on the composition of the atom, we are 99% nothing.
ImInArea52 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:50:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Your are not "in traffic"...you ARE traffic.
the-real-apelord ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:25:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's impossible to know with certainty that two people see the same colours
scottevil110 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 13:17:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not sure what you mean by "philosophical concept", but I've always loved the Trolley Problem. It forces people to think and realize that their answer is never simple.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:43:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's a good one. If you don't mind me asking, what would you do? I think I'd switch the track, but I'm not sure.
metagloria ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:20:25 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Easy. If you have enough time, you can make a long scythe to decapitate the one person on the other track while the trolley runs over the rest of the people on its current track.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:05:22 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dont think i would. One cannot be held accountable for circumstances that are not a result of ones actions. What if it were 10000 people to 1 though? I dont think i would still switch. Its like saying "why arent you doing anything about the rohingya muslims?" Well my actions didnt result in that situation so i am not obligated to do anything. I might out of my goodwill though. But then if it results in me killing a burmese citizen (not a soldier) i would refrain from taking any action.
But thats just my understanding. Open to criticism and refutation.
scottevil110 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 14:27:15 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Well, that's just it. Your answer will almost certainly change depending on the exact specifics. Do I KNOW any of the people involved? Are some of them older than others?
marymary77 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:05:34 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is an episode of the Vsauce YouTube show Mind Field where they set this up as an experiment. It's a great episode. Season 2, Episode 1, The Greater Good. It's on YouTube Red but the episode is free to watch.
JustAnotherTake ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:33:29 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Rene Descartes' "I think, therefore I am."
eclantantfille ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:56:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
One time this guy asked me if I had ever heard of Randy Descartes after mentioning I study philosophy.
Gotta love the great Randy Descartes
JustAnotherTake ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:22:41 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Even more profound than his brother Rene
Konebred ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:25:33 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that it really be like it do
GunsTheGlorious ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:32:10 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's this theory I read recently that makes a lot of sense to me about how we (humans) form cultures and religions.
The theories points out that through history we've had certain 'Revolutions' that radically changed the human experience. First, 70,000 years ago, was the Cognitive Revolution; this is what gave us the ability to form complex social hierarchies. Then came the Agricultural Revolution, and we started to settle down. More than just agriculture, we started to form nation-states, we started to develop writing and mathematics, and more than that we started to control the world around us. Next, the Scientific/Industrial Revolutions, which again changed human life thoroughly, giving rise to nationalism, rationalism, and mass production. Today, we're living in the middle of the Information Revolution, and I can't say exactly what the changes to our society will be, but they are already huge compared to just 40 years ago.
The point that this theory makes is that as we've gone through these revolutions, we have created 'religions' to justify and explain the changes we've made.
Animist religions date back to the Cognitive Revolution; they display humanity as simply part of a larger nature- an important part, certainly, but part of a greater whole.
Theist religions only begin popping up when we hit the Agricultural Revolution, and a lot of them have the same traits; God or Gods created the world and gave humanity dominion over it. That's why we have livestock, that's why we grow crops; we're not part of nature, we're above it. I say 'Theist' religions, but the central trait here is this natural order and dominion of mankind over animals, so I'm including Buddhism and Confucianism here too even though neither are theist.
Then came the Industrial and Scientific Revolutions, and we started developing economic and political religions; capitalism, communism, anarchism, fascism. You may say those aren't religions, but in a lot of ways they are; they're abstract ideologies that both attempt to explain the world around them and tell people how they should live and how society should be. They're atheistic religions (but so is Buddhism, for example).
And today, in the Information Revolution? We worship fame, knowledge, and consumption. Instagram, Reddit, and Youtube are the churches and mosques of the new world.
So the next time you get pissed at an Apple fanboy, remember; Steve Jobs is the new Jesus.
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 19:54:13 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
efie ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:31:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Why did you just repost the top comment in this thread
ultimateblanket ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:52:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not really mindblowing, but something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Why is being born wealthy considered by so many people to be an unfair advantage? It's obvious that some people are born smarter or more athletic, and even though you have to work to develop these traits, some people are just going to be more successful academically or athletically. I've never really seen people call that unfair (I'm sure someone has but not nearly as much as people call wealth unfair). So why is wealth different? It seems to me that it's just another circumstance of birth. The only difference is that it's something that can be physically taken away.
systemadvisory ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:21:28 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The basic model for computation is the Turing machine, and the model for the turing machine was discovered independently by three different mathematicians at once. The models of computing we're functionally equivelent, in the sense that one person discovered a+b=c and another person discovered a=c-b.
A Turing machine is the bare minimum needed to simulate another Turing machine within it. If this is possible, a system is called Turing complete. For example, you can create a fully functional calculator or computer within Minecraft - Minecraft is Turing complete.
The universe is Turing complete.
Is the most basic model of how the universe operates a turing machine?
MTJester8273 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:57:58 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
This is a personal theory, so bear with me:
Motivation is rooted in deceit.
What I mean by this is two things: you believe that the course of action that you take in any given decision is the best (despite misgivings), and in the long term, you plan for eventualities as if they are certainties rather than probabilities. And thatโs great, its how it has worked for everyone. Whatโs fascinating is that this seems to be the only way it works.
Well, kinda. You see, if youโre self aware enough, acknowledge this, and try to be honest with yourself, youโre not going to live a life for long. Simply put, youโre a downright evil individual who has screwed up most of their life, and canโt honestly expect to fulfill all those dreams you have.
If your first thought was violent indignation and/or attempts to prove your worth, you missed the operative phrase in the above paragraph: self aware. Speaking from a mathematical standpoint, your existence has wasted enough energy to total at least two more people (making your existence evil, as a moral person would therefore not desire to live). As for being a screw up, failing at something is one of the first steps to getting good enough to succeed at it, and we illogically pursue this success despite all the failures along the way providing proof that we canโt do it.
But none of that matters if you arenโt self aware. And if you are and know these things, you have to actively lie to yourself. If you arenโt, or you havenโt thought of these things, you can just blissfully do as you always have done.
Its a fascinating conundrum where youโre better off not knowing.
MissBrunetka ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:24:08 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When Spongebob asked Patrick what's funnier than 24 and he said 25.
letaluss ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 20:45:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There are an equal number of "even integers", and "integers"
qwertx0815 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:48:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
not true.
infinities can be bigger or smaller than other infinities.
look up set theory if you want to learn more.
letaluss ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:51:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. They are both sets of countably infinite size.
qwertx0815 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 07:56:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
and one contains the other and is therefor bigger.
letaluss ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:00:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:04:34 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
from your source.
but TIL that this view is actually not as universal as i thought. thank you.
letaluss ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:10:52 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
???
I was saying "there are an equal number of even integers and integers"
not
"there are as many real numbers as natural numbers"
completely different things here.
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:28:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
could you reframe why you believe that cantors diagonal argument shows that the number of uneven integers and integers are equal?
because either it doesn't or i'm dramatically misreading this proof and make myself look stupid by insisting on my point, and i'd really like to know which one it is.
Iamnotarobotchicken ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:18:06 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ooh here's another one. Google Berkely if you want to make yourself doubt the existence of matter for a while.
Konebred ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:25:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that it really be like it do
ringve ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:33:57 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Kant sounds like cunt
Avery_R ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:19:50 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Human life is both the most important thing in our world and practically completely insignificant.
GodOfBlobs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:00:24 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
if my mom gay, how do I hav dad
5starreviewebfarnum ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:01:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
12 pm comes before 11 pm
PersonUsingAComputer ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:05:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It also comes after 11 pm, just somewhat longer after.
dude188755 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:25:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No u
chileman0 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:33:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
the egg theory http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
mttrandom ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:46:54 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone is a bot, except you
Cak556 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:32:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That there is no meaning in anything... that fact gives me so much happiness and melts my anxieties every time I ponder it.
Moshynnn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:07:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's one of the reasons i'm not a depressed fuck
Earthwick ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:12:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Penguins are penguins
nocontroll ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:57:13 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The fundamental idea that there is no "good" or "bad". That what we consider good is just a part of a socioeconomic dilemma.
That we basically use "morality" in order to make our lives easier, but in fact, nothing really matters in the grand scheme of things.
So what we are taught the "right point of view, or the more moralistic" is just basically bullshit. It just allows for a checks and balances in a system that is arbitrary.
I still think there is a right and wrong, but if you break it down it just has to do with someones personal comfort or there adaptation unto a larger society, but ultimately is has very little to do with what makes a society better.
Redarcs ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:32:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If we are truly alive, then we can fundamentally alter reality at a quantum level with just our thoughts.
skinnylittlewhiteboy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:53:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ur mom gay
pbj986 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:18:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Essentially that the only way an Omnipotent God could challenge himself is by destroying himself. This is the only thing omnipotence would not be able to know.
Source: God's Debris - Scott Adams
massassi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:19:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I can't talk about it, but have you watched the movie Fight Club?
chiminage ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:47:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You have been dead longer then you have been alive... when you die you are just going back home.
iwantdiscipline ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 11:36:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wouldnโt say the most mind blowing, but what has my attention right now. Foucaultโs theories on how in the 20th and now 21st century that control of others came from punishment of the body and has evolved to mental punishment and studies prison systems where torture has evolved to surveillance and solitary confinement.
Arguably, a free person is being disciplined and punished for having free thoughts because they are being socially, mentally, and sometimes medically shamed. He was homosexual so thatโs the classic example of how homosexuality was stigmatized and punished when it is a product of nature but categorized as a mental illness even to the present day in some countries.
We can apply that theory to modern day feminism as women are made out to be hysterical for suggesting there is workplace discrimination and a pay gap. Also to civil rights as taking a knee or marching for black lives is actively stigmatized by the president himself. And if we are ever so bold to insist against the status quo were obviously mentally ill.
Would not even be remotely surprised if I get downvoted for giving blm and feminism credence because that social stigma is what itโs all about.
Teraus ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:48:57 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"Would not even be remotely surprised if I get downvoted for giving blm and feminism credence because that social stigma is what itโs all about."
Basically, "if people disagree with me, they prove I'm right"? Maybe you're just wrong and your worldview doesn't apply to reality. It is convenient to adopt an ideology that tells you you're a victim, because that allows you to demand reparations.
iwantdiscipline ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:03:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Good job ignoring the message of the whole post.
And if women come out by the thousands to march for ourselves, self-advocate, and have the courage to litigate sexual discrimination and assault cases in the face of systemic sexism that dismisses our qualms, I wouldnโt call that โvictimization.โ
Stupidcommentsabound ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:50:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The level of value that all of humanity places on money/gold as a whole. what is truely mindblowing is that money and/or gold is worth nothing but society tells you (by force) that it is.
melodicraven ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 15:56:32 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
What money really represents is the value of our time. Our lives are finite. We created money as a tangible means of expressing the value that we place on that particular portion of any given person's lifetime. We're really buying and selling each other's lives.
But you're right in your premise as well. It blows my mind how the whole financial system is just this vast pool of mental bullshit, held in place and sustained by faith and unicorn farts.
Stupidcommentsabound ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:03:05 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That is what it has boiled down to based on this value system. However what if we could change the value system. For example valuing relationships or even valuing the perpetuation of humanity (like in StarTrek); where we do things in oder to receive a different return on investment. That is what I mean when I say gold is worthless. "It is how we have always done things" and we are creatures of habit....
clutchheimer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:33:59 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Gold actually does have some intrinsic value, but fiat currency does not. It doesn't really change your argument, except that gold should not be included.
Well, I would quibble that society does not tell you by force that money has value, it has value because it is agreed the value exists (the fiat). You might argue different kinds of coercion as the origin of the agreement, but it is also easily argued that any and all interaction is coercion on some level.
Stupidcommentsabound ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:08:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I included gold because, historically, that was traded as money and is the basis of paper money. However, during my shower thoughts, I think about how differernt things could be if our society worked for itself and not for money. business and people only do things for the sake of gain and thus abtaining higher status or expensive objects. What if we did things on a selfless scale rather than a self-centered scale? How would society be different... (thanks for your comments!)
david_1199 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:38:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The idea that the universality principle is kinda bs when it comes to what we expect of the future.
Coffeypot0904 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:40:01 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When considering infinity, there are as many even numbers as there are even and odd numbers combined.
Aido121 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:25:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Only because the name, the concept itself is just something that can't be proved isn't worth arguing over.
It's called NEWTON'S FLAMING LASER SWORD.
It's best used when a very religious person is trying to prove God exists to you, simply exclaim NEWTON'S FLAMING LASER SWORD and walk away.
redfoot_medallion ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:53:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I had a friend pose this to me which gave me pause for thought: "do you think that misogyny exists, at least, partly because men have been in the driver's seat of civilization since time immemorial. (barring the notable exceptions of the past who became female rulers and leaders) And while women have influenced men of the past, only in the last few centuries have women begun to receive widespread respect and rights akin to that of a man at birth. So modern women find themselves operating in a world that was established and founded by men and, subconsciously, for men. And men have maligned women for not operating as seamlessly in this world as men and used this reason to bolster misogyny and sexism"
I can't say I agree or disagree because I'm not versed enough in a variety of subjects to make that judgement. But it did make me think.
SetBitZero ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:22:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I've always been a fan of Zenos paradoxes of motion.
servel333 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:26:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I know this is rather mundane, but look around. Almost all of you are completely sorrounded by human made things. But not just made by us, designed, marketted, manufactured, shipped, and sold, etc... A long process. Everything around you was the result of countless hours of at minimum one, and typically thousands of people's time. Even if you have a plant in your house, even if it's a cut of a natural plant, you spent time doing that, growing it, and etc. We are literally sorrounded by our products.
phaerodox ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:32:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That the goal of evolution is us; nature become self aware. The short of it is that obviously everything around you is nature. Nature is the entire universe and everything it encompasses, including all life forms. The fact that we are a concious life form means that we are a self aware part of nature. I forgot who's philosophy this is but I learned it in an environmental philosophy course. Very interesting stuff.
Kunphen ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:33:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Tathagatagarbha. Buddha Nature.
niftypotatoe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:35:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Probably that we don't ever experience the physical world. We only experience or senses which takes place within yourself and we just assume that or senses are an accurate portrayal of reality. We can't describe any physical objects without explaining how our senses interacted with reality. We have no evidence the physical world exists.
Surfing_Ninjas ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:38:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So I believe that time is infinite. This would mean that there is a good possibility that I am not the first me, nor the last me, that has or will ever exist. At some point in the past there has possibly been a world that had all of history of this Earth with all of the same chemical reactions that have occurred over time in order for the person who I identify as to exist. There was a timeline where I was a multi-millionare and a timeline when I was a homeless orphan, and everything in between. This may have happened and may continue to happen for the rest of eternity over and over again.
humanitystillsucks ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:02:44 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
you don't know what you don't know
Pope_Shea ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:08:25 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Statistically we are in a simulation
H3ll0_Th3r3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:24:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Kind of a mathematician one, but put simply, there is no such this as perfection. What we perceive as perfection will always be imperfect in a microscopic way, hell, smaller than that even. And with that, the slightest change, even if it looks like you did nothing, is way bigger when scaled down to the smaller-than-microscopic world
TL;DR literally nothing is perfect and the smallest physical changes to you or your surroundings can be the biggest thing in an infinitely smaller space
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:31:36 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No matter how alone you feel, it will never be as lonely as a true solipsist.
jasonwc22 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:34:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Infinite distance in space
madstersm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:36:43 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Some call nihilism "intellectually lazy", but I think it's actually very hard to comprehend and could potentially be compared to Buddhism.
It's one thing to believe that nothing in life has meaning, but I don't think it's possible within the human experience to not actively attach meaning to things.
CritzD ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:38:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The Vacuum Metastability Event
A horrifying scientific theory that a lot of scientists support, and Heres how it goes.
Our universe could exist in a much larger universe, and if it is disturbed or something happens to it within that universe it could cause our universe to absorb into the bigger one, obliterating everything in ours.
Hereโs one way to think about it. A fish bowl is sitting on a shelf. It is very prone to falling off, so if a cat judges against it, it could fall and everything in it would splash and fall everywhere.
The worst part is that there is a 50/50 chance of this theory being correct.
Installous ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:49:37 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
pyrrhonism
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:11:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
that fucking tree
chapashdp ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:33:45 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time travel.
Wackyal123 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:30:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I wouldnโt say I โknowโ but something I โlikeโ the idea of is this:
If the universe expands/contracts forever, as in, for infinity, then by rule of infinity (like the monkey/typewriter analogy) eventually, the same order of atoms will undoubtedly repeat. As in the universe will go through a near infinite amount of combinations until returning to the same state it is in now.
So to take it further, whether you believe in a God or not, when you die, for an indescribable amount of time, you are dead as a can of spam. There is no consciousness, no awareness, nothing, but then, because the order of atoms will eventually repeat, you will be reborn. Every single event in human history will play out exactly the same because every single atom will repeat its process, and you will also repeat your life again. Rinse, repeat.
I find it comforting and disheartening at the same time.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:44:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Wackyal123 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:24:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Who comes up with this shit! Lol!!!
theEluminator ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:40:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
In Hebrew, we have a word for blue, and a word specifically for bright blue. When I look at most colour spectrums, I see 2 distinct blues.
I recently managed to fully grasp that that's not universal, and I can't imagine a blue less. A song (from South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut) references the sky being ocean blue, and I just can't with that.
The way the language you speak shapes your preception just fucking hurts
Kiotw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:21:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'd say Nietzsche with the eternal return. It blew my mind when i learned about it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:23:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:05:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's not how infinity works.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:38:03 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Teraus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:48:17 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Infinity. Definitely not "infinite percent", though. There are infinite natural numbers, and only 50% of them are even.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:52:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Teraus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:26:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No. There are different sizes/types of infinity.
For example: there are infinite real numbers between 0 and 1. There are also infinite rational numbers between 0 and 1, however, it is possible to order these rational numbers (countable infinity), while it is impossible to order all real numbers.
There are infinite natural numbers, but there are infinitely more real numbers, and so on.
The universe can have an infinite amount of stars, and still have a finite amount of objects of a certain type. It doesn't have to account for every possibility in order to be infinite. Example: the number 0.12345555555.... (it has an infinite amount of 5, and a finite amount of 1, 2, 3 and 4)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:33:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Technophilosophy of Simondon Simondon believes technology is just another force of nature who's potentiality is being restricted by humans.
Nazzapple201 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:33:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Special relativity tells us that only light is constant and than even simultaneous events occur differently from every perspective. It really makes you question how real everything we see is, considering things like how much mass something has is dependent on how we look at it.
CommandoDude ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:36:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That words are meaningless.
It probably has a distinct philosophical label, but I don't know it.
Here is something I think is really, practicably useful for anyone reading this comment. Understand now that what you are reading is merely symbols, not anything with inherent meaning. These symbols are merely a medium, as if water that carries a boat. The water is not a boat, the words are not meaningful. But by using these symbols I can communicate the intangible meaning of my message to you, if you possess the ability to decode my symbols and decipher the meaning within.
Why is this important you ask? Because SO MUCH of the world, especially politics, hinges on the "specific definition" of words used by people to communicate. We must always be conscious of the fact that our words can be interpreted in ways which we don't mean, especially if we insist that certain words "should" mean a certain thing. That is not to say word definitions are irrelevant, because they do provide common context, but we should always be conscious of the fact that miscommunication occurs due to using words with the assumption that people will interpret those words "correctly."
It's why so much of the political sphere consists of people talking "past" each other, because they insist on using words (buzzwords) without clarifying their meaning and without a common understanding of what those words mean when used.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:51:56 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Not certain this qualifies but when i was young i always thought: "How far does the universe go and whats at the end?... also whats on the other side?"
Reddidiot20XX ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:21:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Solipsism. It's the philosophical version of "On Reddit, everyone is a bot except you."
beefstewforyou ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:34:50 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
When Two Chainz said, โshe got a big booty so I call her big bootyโ did he give her the nickname, โBig Bootyโ or does he intend to call her big booty with his cell phone?
somone2117 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:07:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I watch Rick and Morty, so you probably wouldn't understand.
AJMGuitar ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:34:24 on April 14, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That we are just germs on a larger organism hence our collective desire to be productive.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:50:56 on May 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm too dumb for this thread, peace โ๐ฝ
Amy090 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:31:47 on May 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Olo
DopestSoldier ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:42:04 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That God never had a beginning. He always was and forever will be.
deadandroid ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:18:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no god so most people will take this with a grain of salt.
DopestSoldier ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 00:49:02 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Aren't we just talking concepts though? You don't have to believe it's a fact to mull over the concept.
It's an interesting thought of something always having existed.
eclantantfille ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:48:04 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I love these types of concepts a ton. The notion of forever is wild
elbapo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:32:52 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
unsure if qualifies but - the past no longer exists except for our imaginary recollection of it. The future doesnt yet exist except for our imaginings of it. The present is by its nature the illusory boundary between the one and the other and doesnt exist either. Existence is therefore an illusion of our imaginations.
eclantantfille ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:52:15 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It totally qualifies! The metaphysics of time is so neat
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:39:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's a nice idea, but we really don't know if it's true, and very likely will never know.
The_Gama_Alpha ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:30:02 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
If God exists can he create a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?
DM1theImmortal ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:25:44 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Intelligent design is active today and it has nothing to do with a higher power, more with what technology is available at the highest levels of rule.
"It was meant to be" being a real thing.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:05:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
A fucking cool car and a 2012 celta
both at 80km/h
do u think they gonna stay side by side?
[deleted] ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:16:53 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
80km is 80km
TheKober ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:13:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Most likely the shitty Celta will break :P
King_Conker ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:34:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think so
Baby_Powder ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:02:35 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
X is true if and only if X is true.
PedanticPlatypodes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:53:06 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How's this mind-blowing?
Baby_Powder ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:17:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Truth. Anything and everything we take to be a fact. This is the total extent of it. What you think is true is logically dependent on this premise. Which, you might notice, is circular. This is where analytic philosophy ends. There is nothing beyond it.
02745 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:40:53 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That you can't establish good or bad, right or wrong parameters until you define an objective for it. I think a common assumed one might be well being/pleasure/no displeasure/happiness. I think it sounds fairly simple but if you revise your actions under it you might find yourself with a thinking emoji.
FargoniusMaximus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:52:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Free will in the conventional sense as people seem to understand it doesn't really exist.
Sam Harris does a lecture and wrote a short book on this that are pretty compelling and really bummed me out when I first watched/ read them.
Basically, everything that's happened since the beginning of time has been a causal chain of events that could not have happened any other way in the present universe. He presents this idea from a number of perspectives but an example is, on a molecular/ atomic level, matter and energy are acting on one another causing matter and energy affected to behave in an observable, feasibly predictable way. The initial conditions of all matter and energy are determined by conditions that preceded the current conditions. At a base level you are just matter, thus your memories, personality, emotions etc are just a physical state that exists because of previous conditions - you can track this back to the beginning of your life. All that you are is forces external to yourself acting upon you. All the good and terrible things you've ever done were really on a logical level out of your control because based on the initial conditions of the universe, everything that has happened was bound to happen anyways.
hopingforabetterpast ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:47:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The widely known theory of the origin of the universe is consistent with the inexistence of causality "before" the big bang.
The deterministic point of view you describe is very much challanged by what we know so far about quantum physics.
FargoniusMaximus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:53:42 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Okay but as beings existing in a post big bang universe the idea stands. He has a reply to the implications of quantum physics as well. I'd reccomend watching his lecture, it's about an hour long and he covers much more and explains much better than I do, I'm not really well versed in philosophy and have only taken a few courses. I'll see if I can find a link.
hopingforabetterpast ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:09:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That would be awesome. Thanks!
FargoniusMaximus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:15:26 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://youtu.be/pCofmZlC72g
It's been about a year or so since I've watched it but I'm fairly certain this is the one I watched where he addresses how free will is an illusion from a scientific, biological, and perspective of logic and reason and then goes on to address objections including quantum physics. It's a good watch!
FargoniusMaximus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:19:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
https://youtu.be/_FanhvXO9Pk
I think this is a more recent lecture on the same idea so might be worth a watch as well/ instead.
Porterrrr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:48:20 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The next animal with the highest level of consciousness under humans are chimps. The smartest chimps can stack blocks or learn rudimentary sign language at best. The step up to the smartest humans is astrophysicists, mathematicians and geniusโs.
There is a 2% difference in DNA between chimps and humans. If the level of consciousness jumps that much from chimps to humans, and itโs only a 2% difference, then perhaps thatโs 2% is just as small as the percentage sounds. Perhaps that 2% is just an addition of a fraction of brain power, thatโs amounts to a lot in the real world.
Based on this, us humans at our level of consciousness are unable to inter-dimensionally travel, travel through space or communicate with other life. So if aliens were to visit us, they would have to have the brain power to discover how to do these tasks.
If aliens that visited us had only a 2% difference in brain DNA, they would look at us like useless chimps that donโt even know where they are. Aliens with just a 2% difference in DNA could enslave the people of our entire world and we wouldnโt even know it.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:43:51 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[removed]
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:59:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Could u please elaborate?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:21:36 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am trying to figure this out as well - what I got from it is maybe that love is only ever truly "love" when it is a choice made under no obligations, uninfluenced by things like fear, responsibility, need, etc.
So maybe only someone whose mind is free of those pressures can ever experience what love is truly and fully?
captaincracker45 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:11:17 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no such thing as the present. Everything is either the near future or the recent past.
roswo45 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:05:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
โIf the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.โ - Clive Staples Lewis
Sirplentifus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:22:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For me it's the idea of philosophical zombies. That some people might not be conscious, and we would never know. They just behave and speak as if they were. Spooky...
Zephyr4813 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:45:28 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Nah bro I'm 99% sure some people are basically NPCs. They are almost always very dumb as well.
hatchhunter ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:34:31 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno how philosophical this is, but the human brain named itself, and not only that, but in a different way for every. single. language.
TraumaJuice ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:59:20 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The concept of collective unconscious is pretty wild.
raianknight ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:39:49 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Afterlife. Just imagine you know you are dead and you can do something else..
fauxscot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:36:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I'm torn between answering your question and using your question as the answer. I can't decide among all the not-your-question-answers, and that blows my fucking mind. Damn it, you recursive bastard!
PetrRabbit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:21:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Free will vs. Determinism.
No one wants to think that they don't actually have free will. But when you consider it, it doesn't seem like we actually do.
The thought is based off the laws of cause and effect. As far as we can tell, everything that happens is the result of some sort of cause. An apple falls off a tree - the limb had become weak enough that it could no longer sustain the weight of the apple, due to regular agitation from the wind, etc. etc. etc.
So now imagine the choices of humans - I chose to buy a new car because my old one was falling apart. Because of my shitty old car, I started looking at the market, and once I found one that fit my price range and standards, I "decided" to buy it. But that decision was a reaction to all the variables that lead me to seek a new car. So was it me that made this choice, or was it the most effective reaction to the numerous variables that lead me to this place?
The problem with free will, when you consider what is a hard to disprove notion of cause and effect, is that in order for a choice to be "free," it has to have essentially come from nothing. If something is a result of the gazillion variables that preceded it, it is in fact just that - a result - not free, determined. If it does not exist within the notion of cause and effect, where did it come from? That is where the idea of a "free agent" comes in. Something that does not require a cause, yet simply exists autonomously. So if you want free will, somewhere in the human mind is this "free agent." But when you think about all kinds of different concepts in psychology and philosophy, It's hard to find that "free agent." We are formed by the very environment we exist in. Everything we think, do, say, etc., was the effect of some preceding event.
So what's the weird part of this? Although it feels like we are making choices, logically speaking, it's incredibly tough to dispel the idea that these choices are simply the the result of a conjoining path that's been happening through the entire history of.. everything.
So this wanders into metaphysics. Let's say you really want to believe that we have free will, you're gonna have to go ahead and believe that we have a soul which is not subject to the logical laws of the universe that we perceive, therefor, not subject to the laws of cause and effect, can act as a free agent, and is therefor a source of "free will." So holiness, for some, may be a satisfying answer for this. But, in my opinion, the scientist does not yet have an answer that proves we truly have free will.
That said, I hate that, because I like to think I'm in charge of my life.
Chew on that, guys, and offer me any dissenting opinions you find.
*edit: I'd like to add: if any of you poor souls are actually still reading this - I am currently in a battle at my work and in my life that relies heavily on self determination and choice. I'm painfully determined to bring a sense of accountability to some elements of management at my work. And I'm not lost on the irony that I don't, philosophically, believe in free will, yet the root of the issue I find myself in is self determination, "mastering of your own ship," if you will. But one way I've thought to conjoin these conflicting philosophies, is that perhaps I was destined to be a purveyor of relative self determination.
Or I'll die of excessive masturbation next week. Who knows.
ajv0109 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:15:48 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
r/NoContext
PetrRabbit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:43:39 on April 12, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I mean... It's not like that statement meant that much within the context of rest of the post
KYUSS03 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:30:19 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is no objective truth or reality.
twister726 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:19:51 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That having a child is not a morally good act, or to be precise a purely selfish act. There are many reasons, a simple one is - a person will experience both good things and suffering in his life. If that person is never born, then he will not suffer. Also, no one misses out on the happiness he might have had, since he was never born in the first place. Hence the decision to have a child cannot be for its own sake, as it hasn't been created yet. So it's a purely selfish decision. When you have a child, you're not only creating a cute baby, but also the depressed 70 year old who has seen his parents and friends die and has a 40% chance (in the USA) of having cancer and being in agony. So people should think more before blindly creating new humans in this messed up world.
Teraus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:55:12 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I, for one, am grateful for my existence, and wouldn't want to lose it based on the possibility that some people can become unhappy.
twister726 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:15:46 on April 22, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think you didn't understand what I was trying to say. It's not about "some people". There's no question of you "losing" your existence, as that is very different from not having been born in the first place, which is what I'm talking about. If you had never been born, there would be no "you" to miss out on whatever is making you grateful to be alive. Why create a conscious being who can (and will most definitely) suffer? Who misses out if you don't? If it's only you, then it is a purely selfish act. I hope I have made myself more clear than before.
redredleon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:50:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That the idea of the self is not real, but imagined.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 14:44:26 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
JohnLemonBot ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 18:20:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Time exists only on earth? I think what you mean to say is that men decided how we measure time. Time is universal and definitely exists everywhere, although not consistent everywhere from our perspective. Time is actually a property of matter, since massless particles experience no time.
duderos ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 19:27:43 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Actually, time may not exist.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
JohnLemonBot ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:51:12 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
For massless particles, at a quantum level
dsds548 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 16:14:03 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's what traps us here. Without the constraint of time, we could travel anywhere in the universe and possibly meet other intelligent life. Our instruments are all susceptible to time just like we are.
Rptrbptst ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 11:51:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Homosexuality, at the core of it, is a choice, and in that choice, people revel in sin.
sunmachinecomingdown ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 18:13:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
How does the consensual relationship between two individuals of age negatively affect the world?
qwertx0815 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:41:35 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That both doesn't answer OPs question and is wrong to the best of our medical and psychological knowledge.
Byizo ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 15:45:00 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You cannot overtake an opponent in a race so long as both racers are still moving.
Let's say you are in a race with a slower racer. They get a 3 second head start to get a lead on you. As soon as you start you must close the distance between the two of you, thus reaching the point your opponent is currently at. In the time it takes you to reach this point, regardless of how quickly you do so, your opponent has moved somewhat farther ahead. You must then reach the next point on which your opponent is located, thus giving them time to reach a further point ahead of that. This can go on infinitely while all you can do is steadily close the distance, but never actually overtake your opponent.
Of course we know that's not how a race works, but philosophically it makes sense.
Edit: I get that's not how it really works. What I'm saying is that the relationship between the two racers in this thought experiment should be asymptotic. I understand physics. I took several courses in college. I can map out the racer's acceleration, drag, even find the friction coefficient between their feet and the ground to determine whether a slip will occur at a particular force produced by their leg parallel with the ground and tell you within a fairly small margin when one racer will overtake the other.
I thought it was an interesting thought, not a viable physical principle.
toadsuck ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 17:34:46 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Zeno's Paradox?
This is the problem in Zeno's (5th century BC) Paradox where Achilles and the tortoise had a race. Achilles could run ten times as fast as the tortoise, but the tortoise had a hundred yard start.
Achilles runs the hundred yards, but the tortoise is now 10 yards ahead.
Achilles runs the 10 yards, but the tortoise is now 1 yard ahead.
Achilles runs the yard, but the tortoise is now 1/10 yard ahead.
Achilles runs the 1/10th yard, but the tortoise is now 1/100 yard ahead, and so on.
Zeno's question to his colleagues (which they were unable to settle satisfactorily) was how can Achilles overtake the tortoise?
In our enlightened times we are able to resolve this problem because we have the concept of the limit of an infinite series. It is easy to show that
100 + 10 + 1 + 1/10 + 1/100 + 1/1000 + ..... = 111.111111.... = 111 + 1/9 yards (exactly)
So however many fractions (or decimal places) you continue the calculation, its value cannot exceed 111 and 1/9 yard. This is where Achilles overtakes the tortoise, and there is no paradox or contradiction. The ancient Greeks did not have our ideas about limits, so in their logic the problem could not be solved.
gaslightlinux ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 19:08:47 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Zeno's Paradox, and it only works if you don't use the right type of math. Try building a building with just addition and subtraction, you're not going to be able to do it. That doesn't make architecture a paradox.
Nega-Chin ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:17:56 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Since we know that it isn't how a race works in the real world, it has already been shown to make no sense mathematically or philosophically. If an idea directly contradicts the real world, it doesn't mean that the real world is wrong, but that the idea is wrong. Even before we discovered the math which is able to disprove it, it should've been clear that there was something fundamentally wrong with the idea itself...
clutchheimer ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 17:11:40 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It doesn't philosophically make sense, it just sounds plausible before it is examined for inconsistencies.
TJeffersonsBlackKid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:05:48 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
"I solved the problem by walking".
Mullet_Police ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:08:39 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Unless youโre referring to the process of halving the distance between you and your opponent (ie their location at a specific point in time)... because that would actually go on forever into infinity.
Tminusfour20 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:05:39 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't take into an account how first there both moving. I could easily overtake a 3 year old in a race with a headstart even if he or she continues to move.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:35:22 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
That's actually just bullshit.
blindchef ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:28:23 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There is a difference between truth and fact. Fact is something that you can prove and itโs always like that. Truth is something you believe to be true.
Novvoy ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:50:27 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's possible to be an American listening to a native Chinese person speak English in an Irish accent... That blows my mind. Also, being an English speaker and listening to Russian with a Spanish accent or Indian accent. It's just something you never really consider until you've heard it, then it's like... shit. That can happen?
torontosparky ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:44:41 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I would say the double slit experiment, where the result is dependent on whether the experiment is being observed or not. Yes I know it is considered to be a topic of quantum mechanics, but the philosophical implications are immense!
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:32:00 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
You might wanna look that up...
torontosparky ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:50:41 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Care to elaborate? Please, bless us with your knowledge of the topic...
prjindigo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:21:24 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
90% of what you've been told about astrophysics is bullshit because the "constants" it is all based on actually vary.
yourphire ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:22:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No one cares about your problems, stop complaining. Mind blowing
ArloRosetta ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 00:42:21 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Free will is an illusion. Not mind blowing, but pretty much obvious as fuck if you think about it.
hopingforabetterpast ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:43:33 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
There's nothing obvious about organic reductionism.
eclantantfille ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:46:18 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
My favorite question that builds off this is, "If we lack free will, can we ever be morally responsible?"
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:31:16 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
It's a secret. :)
rylokie ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:36:30 on April 10, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Absolute truth exists and is easy to prove.
CaptainTotes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:24:07 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I don't really see what you mean by that. Absolute truth can exist but only in questions where there is an objective answer, which is very little.
rylokie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:59:40 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it true that you donโt really see what I mean by that?
bubblegrubs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:59:30 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No. The fact that they don't understand what you mean relies on the fact they they exist which you have no way of knowing for sure.
rylokie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:52:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Is it true that I have no way of knowing for sure? Is it true that it is a fact that they donโt understand? You are making many truth claims.
bubblegrubs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:03:55 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
No I'm not. I followed one single logical progression. That is one single truth, not many. And it isn't even a truth outside of itself.
rylokie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:29:08 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
So is it true that you are not making many truth claims? Is it true that you followed one single logical progression?
bubblegrubs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:14:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
From my point of view, yeah.
rylokie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:24:05 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Glad I could help you see that absolute truth exists.
bubblegrubs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:29:29 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah it does, but we literally have no way of knowing which one it is.
Edpanther ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 02:07:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
The most mindblowing thing Iโve ever encountered in philosophy is this present day tendacy to view the concept of God as being some sort of superstitious belief system, when scripture in its original form and language it is all mathematics, and far more sophisticated mathematics than anything floating around today. They talk in depth about genetics in a way far more rigorous, thorough, and illuminating than the modern day company line ideation of genetics.
The modern day โatheistโ movement is fever dream anti-semitism and the spiritual ancestor of the nazi regime, and it sprung out of seemingly nowhere immediately after World War II.
The funny thing is that they are not atheists. They are the same substance as teeth chattering โchristiansโ.
Ps - atheism is not the same thing as areligious. Being anti-religion is not atheism, either. Even the bible is anti-religion... Anyone who believes in a primordial higher power of mathematical value is not an atheist. Anyone who believes in some vague sort of โhigher powerโ is not an atheist. Whenever Hawking talked about pursuing to know the mind of God, and later said he was just talking metaphorically, he was only showing his profound ignorance of what the term metaphor actually means. Sorry Americans, you donโt get to steal words from ancient languages that are spectacularly more emotionally and mathematically dense, sophisticated, and advanced than pathetic late stage industrialist white American English and then use them completely wrong and then when corrected just say โwell... that doesnโt matter now because words take on the meaning of their current day usage!โ... get that pathetic shit out of here. Some languages are based on higher orders of mathematical magnitude and possess eternity within them... not all languages are focused on licking the assholes of the lowest common denominator.
In other words, if some self-declared atheist says that they are a human being,.. but then says that they donโt believe in souls, well it doesnโt matter because the term human being literally means a vital unit of existence that is a soul. If you identify as a human being then you believe you have a soul. Period. The term believe is very misrepresented as well. In ancient mathematics and language, Belief is much more akin to not being able to wash blood off oneโs hands no matter how hard they scrub than any hackneyed whitewashed concept of โbelieving something with no evidence!โ ... rolls eyes
The Bible shouldโve never been written down. It is too esoteric and complex of a mathematical system. It can only be properly transmuted through transubstantiation, not by deduction. AKA.. it needs human brains to directly express it using the full capacities of their dynamic, present selfs and cannot be trusted to sit on stagnant, blank pages in words subject to rampant imperialist unthinking mistranslation and for it to not be catastrophically misunderstood by foreign countries and cultures.
zfighter18 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:27:01 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Wait, what? Could you elaborate?
Like, in the slightest.
PedanticPlatypodes ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:48:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Stephen Hawking wasn't American
Also,
huยทman beยทing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
How the fuck is this the same as having a soul? I know that I'm smarter than a dog, I can speak articulately, and I can stand upright; yet, I don't have a soul.
Edpanther ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:00:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Hey pedanticplatypodes, stop being so incredibly stupid. Look at at origin of the word human being... where it comes from. Look up the original Hebrew meaning. That stupid fucking englishized meaning you have is not worth a slice of shit covered toilet paper.
Itโs not even hard, look up itโs fucking origin. But you wonโt... because it is associated with Jews.. so you donโt give a fuck because you are anti-Semitic.
To the dumbass who said Stephen hawking isnโt American... learn how to read... nothing about what I said meant that he was American... use your brain next time.
PedanticPlatypodes ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:19:32 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Ahh, the hypocrisy.
Sooo... Languages change over time, and different languages play off of each other. Thatโs not a hard concept to understand.
?? I literally just googled it and Iโm struggling to see your pointโI havenโt found anything about it originally implying a soul.
Also, I have nothing against Jews. Youโre either a bad troll or stupid
You went from mentioning Stephen hawking to talking about stupid Americans in a few wordsโlearn what implications are
Holy fuck; I never thought Iโd see someone as delusional as you
Also, learn to troll better. You have to be more subtle
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:43:38 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Whatever you're taking, I think it's time for a break from it.
Edpanther ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:34:27 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
I am not taking anything. This is called looking at reality and not projecting 21st century late stage industrialist nazi propaganda upon it. I know that as an anti-Semite you think I should take a break from existing, but youโve got no power and lack the sentience required to comprehend that it is not all about your comfort zone of 21st century dogma and that it is about existence, and the very nature of existence is far more sophisticated than any silly and adolescent dichotomy of โexistence and non existenceโ..
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:41:16 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
2/10. You became to obvious.
Edpanther ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:19:09 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
Iโm not a troll you dumb asshole. The cultures of human past had intelligence too, and much longer attention spans, and took things much more seriously and were not brainwashed by a dogmatic societally enforced false idol worship of LCD, โlowest common denominatability.โ I am not even saying anything outrageous, you are just so out of touch with the potentiality of the world around you that you think math is an abstract concept and pretty much everything except your own corporeal LCD exposure to reality is an abstract concept.
Just go lick Caesarโs asshole... it is what bootlickers like you are destined to do until death does its part.
qwertx0815 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:04:47 on April 11, 2018 ยท (Permalink)
1/10