What Do You Know? (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Huntn

    Misty Mountains Envoy
    Joined
    Mar 8, 2023
    Messages
    424
    Reaction score
    376
    Location
    Rivendell
    Offline
    24Apr2023 Topic: What Do You Really Know?
    Qualifier: Don’t get wrapped up in the little stuff, what might seem proven while visiting the Earth Simulator otherwise known as this Life.


    What do I know?
    Ref1: Solipsism: the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside ...
    Ref2: Agnosticism is an applicable concept, but engulfed by reference 1 imo.
    I
    know four things for certain. To start I like this phase to describe it: I think therefore I am, and I’ll add a qualifier, I have the consciousness, and self awareness to claim I exist In some form, that I have the presence to realize I exist (1). I also know I was inserted into this specific reality described as a simulation or my life (2), and that there is an end date where my presence in this form will cease to exist as it currently does (3). Beyond that, I know nothing…as certain (4).. :unsure:
    • The end of mortal life as it appears in this reality could be the end, but then what is the point? Maybe it’s all chance, and happenstance….but, I don’t know.
    • Counter to chance is design, this could be the Earth Simulator, with someone beyond the gray curtain of this reality pulling levers that make things happen…but, I don’t know.
    • I like voting for the continuation of consciousness, a transistion to something else, a new experience…but, I don’t know.
    • If this reality, the concept of a mortal life, and the premise of souls are all accepted, it could be a repeatable loop… but, I don’t know.
    • _________________________________________________________________ (fill in the blank)

    FOR THE REST OF YOU, I can’t really say If you are real or not. For all I know, not only is this a version of the Matrix (1999 movie reference), you all could be like minded souls living in the perfect simulation, or you could be highly developed AI personalities to keep me from feeling lonely on this journey. :unsure: :D
     
    Last edited:
    I really know what I really know, and I don't really know things until I get to know them :hihi:

    Personally, I don't find the so-called simulation hypothesis anything more than someone's sci-fi fantasy.
     
    I really know what I really know, and I don't really know things until I get to know them :hihi:

    Personally, I don't find the so-called simulation hypothesis anything more than someone's sci-fi fantasy.
    Thanks for answering! My point is that I really know not much of anything when it comes to an accurate determination of my existence. Sure we as a species are getting a better understanding of the rules upon which our universe functions under, but imo we as mortal creatures (or so we regard ourselves) don’t see or even have the ability to “know” anything about our existence, other than we experience a lifetime and then move on, but to where, to non-existence or to a changed state? :unsure: I think most of us want to know what the extent of our existence really is. The only chance of a real answer as at the time of that transistion.

    Are you a fan of the Matrix? :) As far as fantasy, I think everything is on the table. If you don’t mind revealing, (ok if you do mind) are you by chance an ashes to ashes atheist? :)
     
    I find the simulatilon theory, at a minimum, at least as plausible as religious scripture, and is really the only theory that fits with Occam’s razor. After Tyson DeGrasse said he thinks it is better than a 50-50 chance, I really started to wonder.

    The idea that progressed as a species, and over the course of time, our planet became uninhabitable and humans were facing extinction, decided to place the building blocks into a “life boat” with DNA and the civilization building blocks to reestablish life elsewhere isn’t as wild as a person coming back from the dead, a virgin giving birth to god’s kid or a dude parting a sea and walking thousands across the seabed, imo.

    It is actually exactly what you would have to do if we never cracked the spacetime continuum.

    It would take thousands - if not millions of years to reach another planet that is in the Goldilocks Zone. The idea of putting a bunch a people on a ship and setting out for a million years isn’t really possible as I stated.

    So why not pause existence until you get there? Send the information and terratherma equipment to set up the atmosphere, planting, infrastructure etc- it wouldn’t matter if it took another 50,000 years- once it is complete the human sequence could begin and the first regen human would be born with the machines acting as nursemaids.

    There is no way to fly all of humanity to another rock. The food needed would be incredible, let alone the equipment to make oxygen for millions of years. So why even try?

    The humans on earth that would have made this decision already had their death certificates signed - the planet is dead or barren or toxic etc. you cannot get anywhere - even with our massive advancements - that would save their lives or those of their following generations. So what is left is trying to save humanity from extinction. The only way is off this rock. So far, the closest place is 1.2 million light years away (and even that one is plausible not certain) What else would be an option?
     
    Thanks for answering! My point is that I really know not much of anything when it comes to an accurate determination of my existence. Sure we as a species are getting a better understanding of the rules upon which our universe functions under, but imo we as mortal creatures (or so we regard ourselves) don’t see or even have the ability to “know” anything about our existence, other than we experience a lifetime and then move on, but to where, to non-existence or to a changed state? :unsure: I think most of us want to know what the extent of our existence really is. The only chance of a real answer as at the time of that transistion.

    Are you a fan of the Matrix? :) As far as fantasy, I think everything is on the table. If you don’t mind revealing, (ok if you do mind) are you by chance an ashes to ashes atheist? :)

    There is no other existence we can know but the existence we live.

    The extent of our existence... we know what happens to our bodies: they eventually shut down and rot. The question you seem to have is, what happens with your mind? To me, you can't separate the mind from the body. Without a functioning brain, we simply don't exist. Think about this: your mind/personality can radically change with brain injury. You can become a different person from brain trauma. If your mind/personality could be altered so much from injury, how can it survive death?

    There a story about a person who underwent corpus callosotomy surgery, the surgery that disconnects brain hemispheres to prevent severe seizures, and half his brain was a believer and the other atheist. I haven't looked to much into the veracity of this (sounds great for Christian-atheist debates :hihi:, but I'll link a YT video that has source links in it.

    As for living in a simulation, I'll ask, if we live in a simulation, which type of simulation do you think we live in? A Matrix like simulation in which your body is connected to a computer, or a simulation like a video game?

     
    There is no other existence we can know but the existence we live.

    The extent of our existence... we know what happens to our bodies: they eventually shut down and rot. The question you seem to have is, what happens with your mind? To me, you can't separate the mind from the body. Without a functioning brain, we simply don't exist. Think about this: your mind/personality can radically change with brain injury. You can become a different person from brain trauma. If your mind/personality could be altered so much from injury, how can it survive death?

    There a story about a person who underwent corpus callosotomy surgery, the surgery that disconnects brain hemispheres to prevent severe seizures, and half his brain was a believer and the other atheist. I haven't looked to much into the veracity of this (sounds great for Christian-atheist debates :hihi:, but I'll link a YT video that has source links in it.

    As for living in a simulation, I'll ask, if we live in a simulation, which type of simulation do you think we live in? A Matrix like simulation in which your body is connected to a computer, or a simulation like a video game?


    First of all I don’t believe in anything other than as laid out in the first post. :)
    Secondly, I’m not trying to convince you or anyone to believe anything, other than to convince you to stop assuming that what you see is what happens to us In the terms of finality. The best I can say is maybe we die in the tradional view and maybe not, not completely.

    You are limiting your view to what we observe in this life on a very basic, fundamental level. Yes, it appears that the physical body breaks down and returns to the elements from which it arose, but it’s an assumption to say with confidence that consciousness fades away to nothingness. Many of us assume it does.

    Of interest my understanding is that the source of human consciousness is unknown. They think it is centered in the brain, they think they know where, but no one knows how it is specifically generated, nor what the difference is between a biological computer that has attained consciousness and a mechanical computer that is running a high level AI program. The impossible question is are the lights on or off? If a constructed mechanical computer can run a program, be equipped with sensors, can be programmed to emulate a human, but would it have consciousness as we know it or is it just a fancy sensor equipped, interactive typewriter?

    In an effort to provide food for though, I am happy to contemplate the concept of soul, which you are free to reject. Of note, this does not make me a Christian, just someone who thinks about the meaning of this life, in this reality, and if a mortal life is all that exists, barely a blip in all of eternity, what is the point?
    Is this life, just a joke, is there any long term benefit from the lessons learned or the experiences had?
    Our normal state would be non-existence, and this life coukd be just a huge meaningless, waste of time. If there is no point, no benefit, than might as well get it over with and get back to non-existing. :)

    This is why I hope there is a mechanism that provides for the continuation of consciousness. For the soul, a connection we can’t detect is linked to a mortal humsn lump of flesh for as long as that flesh remains functional. When the flesh dies , the connection is broken. The idea of the Earth Simulater would facilitate this in some manner. Actually with the tradional view of religion, our substantive existence is in the afterlife, so the idea of a Earth Simulator would not be that alien.

    Ironically I consider the atheist, ashes to ashes view to be on just as shakey ground as the Christian view but for opposite reasons, For atheist, a collection of molecules formed in such a manner that we poofed into existence for our life and then we are gone forever. What an assumption! With infinity to work with, and what little we know about the system we find ourselves in, and basically nothing about the other side of the universe, just what we observe and assume, it seems highly over confident to claim to know that a mortal death is the end... hardly. Feel free to disagree. :D


     
    First of all I don’t believe in anything other than as laid out in the first post. :)
    Ok?
    Secondly, I’m not trying to convince you or anyone to believe anything, other than to convince you to stop assuming that what you see is what happens to us In the terms of finality.
    You can't convince me of anything without any evidence, or at least a sound argument.

    You are limiting your view to what we observe in this life on a very basic, fundamental level. Yes, it appears that the physical body breaks down and returns to the elements from which it arose, but it’s an assumption to say with confidence that consciousness fades away to nothingness. Many of us assume it does.
    I limit myself to what we observe because that is the only reality what we can perceive.
    It doesn't appear that the physical body breaks down, it breaks down.
    I can say with confidence that consciousness fades away because all of the evidence points to consciousness fading away after death: consciousness cannot survive a dead brain; heck, it can't survive a severely damage brain. Consciousness lives in chemical and electrical signals in the brain. Without the chemical and electrical signals, and an organic network to send/conduct/receive them, it doesn't exist. There is absolutely no proof or even valid evidence that a consciousness can live outside the brain.
    Of interest my understanding is that the source of human consciousness is unknown. They think it is centered in the brain, they think they know where, but no one knows how it is specifically generated, nor what the difference is between a biological computer that has attained consciousness and a mechanical computer that is running a high level AI program.
    We know consciousness is centered around the brain. That's how doctors can induce comas in patients. Brain mapping (for lack of a better word) has gone a long way the last few decades.

    I am guessing that when you say "biological computer" you mean brain? The difference between a brain and so-called AI is not that difficult to discern: the computer can only learn what it is told to learn, it learns only in the way it is told to learn, and it only responds in the way it is told to respond. And all of that is coded in 0's and 1's.
    The impossible question is are the lights on or off? If a constructed mechanical computer can run a program, be equipped with sensors, can be programmed to emulate a human, but would it have consciousness as we know it or is it just a fancy sensor equipped, interactive typewriter?
    It will not have consciousness as a human being has consciousness. It'll have no consciousness at all. It'd be just a program.
    In an effort to provide food for though, I am happy to contemplate the concept of soul, which you are free to reject. Of note, this does not make me a Christian, just someone who thinks about the meaning of this life, in this reality, and if a mortal life is all that exists, barely a blip in all of eternity, what is the point?
    many civilizations have come up with ideas of a soul or spirit that lives on after death, so believing in one doesn't make you a Christian. But again, no evidence that consciousness can move from the physical to the ethereal.

    As for the point of live, life has no point other than life itself. What's the point of a dog's life? What's the point of an ant's life? What's the point of a gnu's life? What was the purpose of a dinosaur's life? What's the point of the lives of countless virues and bacteria we don't even know exist? Humans like to think there's some higher purpose to their lives, but they forget where they come from and what they were before they were humans.

    Is this life, just a joke, is there any long term benefit from the lessons learned or the experiences had?
    The long term benefit is passing our experiences to the next generations for them to achieve a better life while they have it.
    Our normal state would be non-existence, and this life coukd be just a huge meaningless, waste of time. If there is no point, no benefit, than might as well get it over with and get back to non-existing. :)
    I guess it can be said that our normal state is non-existence: none of us existed before we were born. But for me, I am going to make the best of the time I have alive.
    This is why I hope there is a mechanism that provides for the continuation of consciousness. For the soul, a connection we can’t detect is linked to a mortal humsn lump of flesh for as long as that flesh remains functional. When the flesh dies , the connection is broken. The idea of the Earth Simulater would facilitate this in some manner. Actually with the tradional view of religion, our substantive existence is in the afterlife, so the idea of a Earth Simulator would not be that alien.
    That aligns with Christianity, BTW.
    Ironically I consider the atheist, ashes to ashes view to be on just as shakey ground as the Christian view but for opposite reasons,
    You really think that "I don't believe without evidence" is on the same level as "I believe without evidence"?

    For atheist, a collection of molecules formed in such a manner that we poofed into existence for our life and then we are gone forever. What an assumption! With infinity to work with, and what little we know about the system we find ourselves in, and basically nothing about the other side of the universe, just what we observe and assume, it seems highly over confident to claim to know that a mortal death is the end... hardly. Feel free to disagree. :D
    You continue to state that we know little about the system we find ourselves in, but that is not the case.
    Also, atheism is simply the nonbelief in gods, regardless of personal beliefs as to how we got where we are.
    The scientifical evidence we have doesn't say "we poofed". It took billions of years of chemical reactions and evolution to get where we are today.

    For someone who says
    Of note, this does not make me a Christian,
    you surely sound like a Christian apologist. You are just repackaging Jeremiah 1:5 in a sci-fi wrapper.
     
    Ok?

    You can't convince me of anything without any evidence, or at least a sound argument.


    I limit myself to what we observe because that is the only reality what we can perceive.
    It doesn't appear that the physical body breaks down, it breaks down.
    I can say with confidence that consciousness fades away because all of the evidence points to consciousness fading away after death: consciousness cannot survive a dead brain; heck, it can't survive a severely damage brain. Consciousness lives in chemical and electrical signals in the brain. Without the chemical and electrical signals, and an organic network to send/conduct/receive them, it doesn't exist. There is absolutely no proof or even valid evidence that a consciousness can live outside the brain.

    We know consciousness is centered around the brain. That's how doctors can induce comas in patients. Brain mapping (for lack of a better word) has gone a long way the last few decades.

    I am guessing that when you say "biological computer" you mean brain? The difference between a brain and so-called AI is not that difficult to discern: the computer can only learn what it is told to learn, it learns only in the way it is told to learn, and it only responds in the way it is told to respond. And all of that is coded in 0's and 1's.

    It will not have consciousness as a human being has consciousness. It'll have no consciousness at all. It'd be just a program.

    many civilizations have come up with ideas of a soul or spirit that lives on after death, so believing in one doesn't make you a Christian. But again, no evidence that consciousness can move from the physical to the ethereal.

    As for the point of live, life has no point other than life itself. What's the point of a dog's life? What's the point of an ant's life? What's the point of a gnu's life? What was the purpose of a dinosaur's life? What's the point of the lives of countless virues and bacteria we don't even know exist? Humans like to think there's some higher purpose to their lives, but they forget where they come from and what they were before they were humans.


    The long term benefit is passing our experiences to the next generations for them to achieve a better life while they have it.

    I guess it can be said that our normal state is non-existence: none of us existed before we were born. But for me, I am going to make the best of the time I have alive.

    That aligns with Christianity, BTW.

    You really think that "I don't believe without evidence" is on the same level as "I believe without evidence"?


    You continue to state that we know little about the system we find ourselves in, but that is not the case.
    Also, atheism is simply the nonbelief in gods, regardless of personal beliefs as to how we got where we are.
    The scientifical evidence we have doesn't say "we poofed". It took billions of years of chemical reactions and evolution to get where we are today.

    For someone who says

    you surely sound like a Christian apologist. You are just repackaging Jeremiah 1:5 in a sci-fi wrapper.
    Thanks for your input! :)
    I am an agnostic with a sprinkling of solipsism sprinkled in. I make no excuses for Christianity, but I do understand the motivations for wanting a continuation of consciousness. That could mean there is a purpose for this life, otherwise this life really means nothing imo, for reasons previously stated.

    The bottom line is that from a practical standpoint, we consider proof as what we can see and measure and say in most cases the reality we exist in acts or appears to act a certain way.

    However from a philosophical standpoint, I suggest that when you know 1% of what there is to know, that it’s tough to say we have proof for what is happening in life to death transitions, beyond saying this person ceases to exist as an entity that can be detected. It is a good statement to say we see these things happen, but it is a mistake to say what we see is all there is. Sure, as a counter, preface every statement of fact with “as far as we know”. :)
     
    Last edited:
    Thanks for your input! :)
    I am an agnostic with a sprinkling of solipsism sprinkled in. I make no excuses for Christianity, but I do understand the motivations for wanting a continuation of consciousness. That could mean there is a purpose for this life, otherwise this life really means nothing imo, for reasons previously stated.

    The bottom line is that from a practical standpoint, we consider proof as what we can see and measure and say in most cases the reality we exist in acts or appears to act a certain way.

    However from a philosophical standpoint, I suggest that when you know 1% of what there is to know, that it’s tough to say we have proof for what is happening in life to death transitions, beyond saying this person ceases to exist as an entity that can be detected. It is a good statement to say we see these things happen, but it is a mistake to say what we see is all there is. Sure, as a counter, preface every statement of fact with “as far as we know”. :)

    How do you arrive at "when you know 1% of what there is to know" ? And what are you including in the 99%? I don't know everything... but everything includes things like the names of all people who have ever lived, which is overwhelmingly irrelevant to humanity. I don't know of all of the viruses that exist or ever existed, but I know of viruses and how they behave, so when a new virus is discovered, we already know a lot about it.

    We have plenty of proof of what happens when someone dies. Causes of death vary obviously, but we know exactly what happens when the body dies: all of our organs stop working, including the brain, and when the brain dies, all of those chemical reactions and electric signals that make your consciousness, which are very physical, stop firing; there is absolutely no evidence that a consciousness continues to exist outside the brain, as those chemical reactions and electric signals have no physical place to transfer to.

    You didn't say which type of simulation you think we could be in.
    Also, what's an "ashes to ashes atheist"? An atheist is just that, an atheist, someone who doesn't believe in gods.

    Speaking of philosophy: I had to take philosophy in college, which to me was kind of a drag, to be honest. Once, the teacher asked "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" A buddy of mine raised one hand, and started to smack his fingers on his palm. I cracked up. Teacher was not amused.
     
    How do you arrive at "when you know 1% of what there is to know" ? And what are you including in the 99%? I don't know everything... but everything includes things like the names of all people who have ever lived, which is overwhelmingly irrelevant to humanity. I don't know of all of the viruses that exist or ever existed, but I know of viruses and how they behave, so when a new virus is discovered, we already know a lot about it.

    We have plenty of proof of what happens when someone dies. Causes of death vary obviously, but we know exactly what happens when the body dies: all of our organs stop working, including the brain, and when the brain dies, all of those chemical reactions and electric signals that make your consciousness, which are very physical, stop firing; there is absolutely no evidence that a consciousness continues to exist outside the brain, as those chemical reactions and electric signals have no physical place to transfer to.

    You didn't say which type of simulation you think we could be in.
    Also, what's an "ashes to ashes atheist"? An atheist is just that, an atheist, someone who doesn't believe in gods.

    Speaking of philosophy: I had to take philosophy in college, which to me was kind of a drag, to be honest. Once, the teacher asked "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" A buddy of mine raised one hand, and started to smack his fingers on his palm. I cracked up. Teacher was not amused.
    Ok, make it .1% of all there is to know. The idea is we don’t know how much there is to know. :)

    Ashes to ashes atheist is one that believes that we as entities experience existence one time, based on randomness/coincidence, for a period representing not even a spark in the timeline , and then disappear forever. Btw, are you an atheist?

    Simulation, if such a thing obviously advanced, think of playing a RPG game on your computer, sitting at the keyboard, making choices except you are unaware that you have an existence outside the simulation while you are playing the game.

    This is why philosophy is interesting :)
    You’ve stated your position clearly. In a nutshell if you can’t see a soul, it does not exist. This is a valid way to live your life as long as you are open minded as new evidence is gathered. Regarding what happens at death, we see the physical result as best we can see it, but the meta-physical has traditionally been blown off, maybe because it is too elusive, too subjective.

    My position is that I don’t know if there is a soul, but acknowledge I do want to see a mechanism for the continuation of consciousness beyond mortal death, but I’ll never say I believe, and as an agnostic, based on knowing basically nothing* (check out solipsism) I would never assume or presume I that I have a clear, competent view of my existence.

    * Science has a decent handle on what it can see, but the rub is how much is unseen.

    And in an attempt to contemplate this existence, the idea of purpose makes more sense to me than a completely random chain of events that gave me consciousness, a life of experiences that represents not even a nano-second in the time line, that evaporates at the moment of death into inconsequential nothingness. As I said before, what is the point of that?

    Feel free to disregard or disagree with any of the following.




     
    Last edited:
    Ok, make it .1% of all there is to know. The idea is we don’t know how much there is to know. :)
    So we make what we know even lower? Again, how do you quantify that?

    Ashes to ashes atheist is one that believes that we as entities experience existence one time, based on randomness/coincidence, for a period representing not even a spark in the timeline , and then disappear forever. Btw, are you an atheist?
    You are just making a definition. Again, as the name implies, an atheist is simply one who doesn't believe in gods.
    As for me being an atheist, I take it you have not read my posts on this forum.

    Simulation, if such a thing obviously advanced, think of playing a RPG game on your computer, sitting at the keyboard, making choices except you are unaware that you have an existence outside the simulation while you are playing the game.
    So are you an NPC or a player? If you are an NPC, then it doesn't matter what you think, you are just code that can be erased or changed at any time, and you virtually die every time the game is turned off. If you are a player, what's the point of the simulation?

    This is why philosophy is interesting :)
    You’ve stated your position clearly. In a nutshell if you can’t see a soul, it does not exist. This is a valid way to live your life as long as you are open minded as new evidence is gathered. Regarding what happens at death, we see the physical result as best we can see it, but the meta-physical has traditionally been blown off, maybe because it is too elusive, too subjective.
    Traditionally, the metaphysical has not been blown off, on the contrary. If that was the case, we wouldn't have religions today. But we have religions today, which have survived thousands of years, because of the importance that humanity has given to the metaphysical.


    And in an attempt to contemplate this existence, the idea of purpose makes more sense to me than a completely random chain of events that gave me consciousness, a life of experiences that represents not even a nano-second in the time line, that evaporates at the moment of death into inconsequential nothingness. As I said before, what is the point of that?
    What do you think your purpose is?
    If you think you have a purpose to exist, it follows that you believe some entity gave you that purpose. Which entity do you think gave you purpose?

    Feel free to disregard or disagree with any of the following.




    I will disregard all of that because none of that has any real basis on real science.


    .
     
    So we make what we know even lower? Again, how do you quantify that?

    How do you determine what % of how much we know?

    You are just making a definition. Again, as the name implies, an atheist is simply one who doesn't believe in gods.
    As for me being an atheist, I take it you have not read my posts on this forum.

    I am relatively new to this forum. I did not make up that term, came across it online. This is not the source but of interest:


    For you, is it as simple as I see no god therefore there is no god? Note, this is not part of any argument from me about the existence of a god.

    So are you an NPC or a player? If you are an NPC, then it doesn't matter what you think, you are just code that can be erased or changed at any time, and you virtually die every time the game is turned off. If you are a player, what's the point of the simulation?

    I don’t know what I am nor what the point would be, but for there to be a point, continuation of consciousness would be required. My point is and has been is that in the realm of continued consciousness that if such a mechanism it could reduce this life to in essence, to a simulation.

    And if there is no continuation of consciousness, then what we perceive and do in our lives means absolutely nothing. Our existence would be a complete waste of time, unless purpose or lasting experience can be assigned to it.

    Traditionally, the metaphysical has not been blown off, on the contrary. If that was the case, we wouldn't have religions today. But we have religions today, which have survived thousands of years, because of the importance that humanity has given to the metaphysical.

    I’ll concede this point, while saying that if you conceded it is likely there is more we don’t know than do know, that the amount of confidence in what we consider to be proven must be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, we can only evaluate what can be evaluated, so this is more of an attitude.



    What do you think your purpose is?
    If you think you have a purpose to exist, it follows that you believe some entity gave you that purpose. Which entity do you think gave you purpose?
    I have not claimed there is an entity that gives us purpose, but I have previously explained the framework for purpose, the continuation of consciousness.


    I will disregard all of that because none of that has any real basis on real science.

    Which is your right to do so, but if you live in a room without doors and windows that it would be a mistake to claim there is nothing outside that room. You would first have to believe there is an unknown waiting to be discovered, and indeed you might feel that way. But what I typically hear from atheist are the equivalent statements of confidence as to what is proven and the rest appears to be discounted as even a possibility. Would you say that is accurate?
     
    How do you determine what % of how much we know?

    I don't.

    I am relatively new to this forum. I did not make up that term, came across it online. This is not the source but of interest:
    Well, someone made it up. And just no: there are no different types of atheism or "atheism beliefs". Atheism is simply "without god", nothing more, nothing else. There is no belief system. Actually, is a non-belief.

    For you, is it as simple as I see no god therefore there is no god?
    That's putting it in a very simplistic way, but I am not convinced there is a god because there is no evidence one exists. There are 1000's of gods recorded through human history, and there is no evidence that any of them exist. Funny enough, religious people believe their god or gods are real but the gods from other religions are mythology. Christopher Hitchens used to tell Christians he debated they were atheists about every single god but the one they believe in, so they were getting closer and closer to the true number.

    I don’t know what I am nor what the point would be, but for there to be a point, continuation of consciousness would be required. My point is and has been is that in the realm of continued consciousness that if such a mechanism it could reduce this life to in essence, to a simulation.

    And if there is no continuation of consciousness, then what we perceive and do in our lives means absolutely nothing. Our existence would be a complete waste of time, unless purpose or lasting experience can be assigned to it.
    And to what end would lasting experience be assigned to life? How would you continue to experience life without organs?

    I’ll concede this point, while saying that if you conceded it is likely there is more we don’t know than do know, that the amount of confidence in what we consider to be proven must be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, we can only evaluate what can be evaluated, so this is more of an attitude.
    I never said we know all there's to know, and I don't think we need to take everything with a grain of salt. Evaluating what we can evaluate is not an attitude; it is the only way we learn about the world we live in, not imagining things.
    I have not claimed there is an entity that gives us purpose, but I have previously explained the framework for purpose, the continuation of consciousness.
    So what gives this purpose? And what's the goal of the continuation of consciousness? How does this continuation of consciousness work?

    Which is your right to do so, but if you live in a room without doors and windows that it would be a mistake to claim there is nothing outside that room.
    MY room has many windows and many doors. I walk out of that room habitually. But at the end of the day, the extraordinary claims without any evidence get discarded.
    You would first have to believe there is an unknown waiting to be discovered, and indeed you might feel that way. But what I typically hear from atheist are the equivalent statements of confidence as to what is proven and the rest appears to be discounted as even a possibility. Would you say that is accurate?
    I don't know what you hear from atheists, but atheists aren't an organization, not have a common belief system. They are just people who don't believe in gods, as the name implies. Everything after that, every man and woman for themselves.

    As far as possibilities, I guess that depends what you consider a "possibility". Continuous conscience is simply not possible in nature.
     
    I don't.


    Well, someone made it up. And just no: there are no different types of atheism or "atheism beliefs". Atheism is simply "without god", nothing more, nothing else. There is no belief system. Actually, is a non-belief.

    According to what I have read, there are different flavors of Atheism, so I’ll say there are Atheists who disagree with you.

    That's putting it in a very simplistic way, but I am not convinced there is a god because there is no evidence one exists. There are 1000's of gods recorded through human history, and there is no evidence that any of them exist. Funny enough, religious people believe their god or gods are real but the gods from other religions are mythology. Christopher Hitchens used to tell Christians he debated they were atheists about every single god but the one they believe in, so they were getting closer and closer to the true number.

    So are you prepared to say there is no God as a definitive statement or as a I don’t know?


    And to what end would lasting experience be assigned to life? How would you continue to experience life without organs?
    You are viewing life in the way we know life. In a universe of possibilities, I have taken consciousness as something that possibly is piped into or from another form of existence. I have no proof, but as I made the comparison to a typewriter with the AI intelligence and sensors to mimic a human including the appearance of consciousness (granted, not yet invented) are the lights on or off? Is it just running it’s program, or could it attain self awareness as a human would? If it can, how, and if it can’t why not? Consciousness, the understanding of it, and the perception of self could be the difference between us and that typewriter. Why would a biological computer be able to achieve this and not a machine we create? I’m not asking for an answer as the answer obviously is unknown,

    I never said we know all there's to know, and I don't think we need to take everything with a grain of salt. Evaluating what we can evaluate is not an attitude; it is the only way we learn about the world we live in, not imagining things.

    I agree, along with open mindedness and not limiting ourselves to just what we think we know, but to consider outside the box possibilities, which would include human imagination. The danger would be of making things up. And before you accuse me of that, I’ll remind you this is a philosophical exercise, not statements of fact.

    So what gives this purpose? And what's the goal of the continuation of consciousness? How does this continuation of consciousness work?
    Are you asking who gives purpose? I’ll say no one. If you are asking about the mechanism/motivation of purpose, it would be longevity. In a scenario/lifetime you will learn something about your self that might alter your approach to any number of things, such as self awareness, attaining knowledge, or how you interact with other like entities. I’ll state again without longevity, your experience on Earth, what you do for others, how you helped the species advance, it means nothing, there is zero purpose if we are all dead in a human lifetime, never to be seen again.

    MY room has many windows and many doors. I walk out of that room habitually. But at the end of the day, the extraordinary claims without any evidence get discarded.

    My point is that if you live in a room without windows or doors, you can’t say what is or is not outside that boundary

    I don't know what you hear from atheists, but atheists aren't an organization, not have a common belief system. They are just people who don't believe in gods, as the name implies. Everything after that, every man and woman for themselves.
    How do you feel:about spirituality?

    As far as possibilities, I guess that depends what you consider a "possibility". Continuous conscience is simply not possible in nature.

    It is simply not possible as far as we know, in what we know about our existence which… is very little. :D
     
    According to what I have read, there are different flavors of Atheism, so I’ll say there are Atheists who disagree with you.
    Just because some misguided person writes in a blog/opinion piece that there are many flavors of atheism, atheist or not, it doesn't mean he/she is correct. It's in the name: "no god". That's it. How many flavors of nothing can there be?

    So are you prepared to say there is no God as a definitive statement or as a I don’t know?
    Boy, you surely use a lot of Christian apologists' arguments. As commonly defined, a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, I am prepared to say there is no god as a definite statement.

    You are viewing life in the way we know life. In a universe of possibilities, I have taken consciousness as something that possibly is piped into or from another form of existence. I have no proof,
    How is it piped in? If it is from another existence, what happens to that existence? Because you definitely were not born knowing much about anything. If consciousness/knowledge is transferred to you, you should know things, like a language for example.

    but as I made the comparison to a typewriter with the AI intelligence and sensors to mimic a human including the appearance of consciousness (granted, not yet invented) are the lights on or off? Is it just running it’s program, or could it attain self awareness as a human would? If it can, how, and if it can’t why not? Consciousness, the understanding of it, and the perception of self could be the difference between us and that typewriter. Why would a biological computer be able to achieve this and not a machine we create? I’m not asking for an answer as the answer obviously is unknown,
    But the answer is not unknown. A computer can only do what we tell it to do, it can only "think" what we tell it to think, it can only know what we tell it to know, it can only learn the things we tell it to learn the way we tell it to learn. and everything would still be 0's and 1's for the computer.

    I agree, along with open mindedness and not limiting ourselves to just what we think we know, but to consider outside the box possibilities, which would include human imagination. The danger would be of making things up. And before you accuse me of that, I’ll remind you this is a philosophical exercise, not statements of fact.
    That's a confusing statement. At what point do you determine things are "made up"?

    Are you asking who gives purpose? I’ll say no one. If you are asking about the mechanism/motivation of purpose, it would be longevity. In a scenario/lifetime you will learn something about your self that might alter your approach to any number of things, such as self awareness, attaining knowledge, or how you interact with other like entities. I’ll state again without longevity, your experience on Earth, what you do for others, how you helped the species advance, it means nothing, there is zero purpose if we are all dead in a human lifetime, never to be seen again.
    Another strange statement. Albert Einstein has been dead for 70 years; Charles Darwin has been dead for 140 years; Thomas Dimsdale has been dead for 225 years... I can keep throwing names at you of all of the people who have greatly contributed their knowledge to help the human species advance, and their studies/findings/theories continue to advance the human race.

    My point is that if you live in a room without windows or doors, you can’t say what is or is not outside that boundary
    How do you reconcile that statement with your previous statement, "the danger would be making things up"?

    How do you feel:about spirituality?
    That is going to depend on your definition of spirituality as it seems to be a spectrum now, but if it includes anything to do with the supernatural, well...

    It is simply not possible as far as we know, in what we know about our existence which… is very little. :D
    You keep using "we know very little about our existence" as a shield. Continuous conscience is not possible in nature. Do you have a hypothesis about how that could be possible?
     
    I’ve been traveling you did not scare me away. :D

    Just because some misguided person writes in a blog/opinion piece that there are many flavors of atheism, atheist or not, it doesn't mean he/she is correct. It's in the name: "no god". That's it. How many flavors of nothing can there be?

    I won’t debate atheism with you. Search online, there are people who disagree with your atheism stance one such article:


    It is a curiosity seen all over the world. An “atheist” might also believe in angels, fairies, karma, a divine plan, a soul, ghosts, spirits, or Ouija boards. None of these, alone, make up an organized belief, but they are beliefs of a sort

    Boy, you surely use a lot of Christian apologists' arguments. As commonly defined, a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, I am prepared to say there is no god as a definite statement.
    The arguments I make are not to support Christianity, only of the *possibility* of something greater than us, which as an agnostic is within bounds. Imo it is poor judgement to make any statements pro or con about the likelyhood of the equivalent of a god or the God.

    How is it piped in? If it is from another existence, what happens to that existence? Because you definitely were not born knowing much about anything. If consciousness/knowledge is transferred to you, you should know things, like a language for example.

    No need for me to even try to justify your question.

    But the answer is not unknown. A computer can only do what we tell it to do, it can only "think" what we tell it to think, it can only know what we tell it to know, it can only learn the things we tell it to learn the way we tell it to learn. and everything would still be 0's and 1's for the computer.

    What makes us superior to a silicon computer? What about our programming? Why are we more flexible. What about when they design a computer with the same computing power as a human brain? Will it equate to a human and become conscious? Unless you have a handy link that says otherwise, we suspect consciousness is centered in the brain, but we don’t understand the mechanism, have not identified it.

    That's a confusing statement. At what point do you determine things are "made up"?
    Already stated, this is a philosophical discussion, of imagined possibilities, not statements of fact. Imagination plays a distinct role in the way human beings approach the unknown. There are facts n the category of known, until new knowledge changes those facts, or illustrates them as false. You can certainly live your life by what you think you know, but this does not mean you are correct. And to think you are correct, without any doubt is foolish Imo.

    You’ll probably say I’m living my live the best way I can and I won’t fault you for that, and it will have zero bearing on what I imagine or feel as possibilities. I feel that there is much more to this existence hidden behind the grey curtain of this life (Gandalf mentioned it :)).You in contrast say, I see no curtain, there is no curtain in essence not only do I not believe what I can’t see, but I refuse to contemplate anything beyond what I can see. You also say (correct me if I am in error) I see someone die, they are dead and cease to exist. I’m not prepared to say that, and you’ll ask me for proof which can’t be proven. All that can be said, is that they are no longer here in a form we recognize. End of discussion! :D

    Another strange statement. Albert Einstein has been dead for 70 years; Charles Darwin has been dead for 140 years; Thomas Dimsdale has been dead for 225 years... I can keep throwing names at you of all of the people who have greatly contributed their knowledge to help the human species advance, and their studies/findings/theories continue to advance the human race.

    Good for you, that is irrelevant to the level where this discussion exists. And I’ll note that if you have no interest in it at on that level, then don’t waste your time with meaningless counters.

    How do you reconcile that statement with your previous statement, "the danger would be making things up"?
    You really don’t want to discuss this topic as I have presented it. Save us some time, and just say that ou disagree .I’m ok with that, and will likely soon say thanks for your input sir as a closer, at least to you, because you are rejecting everything I say, which is fine, but it is pointless to go on. :)

    That is going to depend on your definition of spirituality as it seems to be a spectrum now, but if it includes anything to do with the supernatural, well...

    First you have to answer my question, not deflect from it.


    You keep using "we know very little about our existence" as a shield. Continuous conscience is not possible in nature. Do you have a hypothesis about how that could be possible?
    You “know” CC is not possible, I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I don’t need a hypothesis, because I’m not trying to prove what at this point is not provable. I completely accept you rejection of everything I have brought up in this thread. Thanks for your input, good day sir! :)
     
    I’ve been traveling you did not scare me away. :D



    I won’t debate atheism with you. Search online, there are people who disagree with your atheism stance one such article:


    It is a curiosity seen all over the world. An “atheist” might also believe in angels, fairies, karma, a divine plan, a soul, ghosts, spirits, or Ouija boards. None of these, alone, make up an organized belief, but they are beliefs of a sort

    We all have things to do.

    I don't need to search online to know what "atheist" means. There are atheists who believe that aliens have visited the Earth, or that Big Foot exists... that has nothing to do with them being atheists. I knew a guy who thought the force was real, so what?

    The article you linked, the blogger doesn't seem to know what "non-religious" means either.

    The arguments I make are not to support Christianity, only of the *possibility* of something greater than us, which as an agnostic is within bounds.
    They may not be made to support Christianity, but they certainly are common apologists claims, like claiming that "non-belief" is really a belief.

    Imo it is poor judgement to make any statements pro or con about the likelyhood of the equivalent of a god or the God.
    I don't think it is poor judgement, on the contrary, I think it is poor judgement to believe without evidence.
    No need for me to even try to justify your question.
    Why would you "justify" my question? But if you don't mind answering it...

    What makes us superior to a silicon computer? What about our programming? Why are we more flexible. What about when they design a computer with the same computing power as a human brain? Will it equate to a human and become conscious? Unless you have a handy link that says otherwise, we suspect consciousness is centered in the brain, but we don’t understand the mechanism, have not identified it.
    Computers surpassed the computing power of a human brain a long, long time ago. This should come as no surprise; a simple calculator can tell you the answer of an equation in a fraction of a second, your brain can't. Your conscious brain cannot concentrate on 2 things at the same time, while computers can concentrate on many things at the same time.

    What makes us superior to computers, is that we manufacture them, we program them, and they cannot do absolutely anything until we tell them what, how and when to do it. And they won't ask why.

    Unlike brains, computers don't "think" in abstracts. Computers are not going to look at the window and think it is a nice day to go for a walk or the beach. Computers are not attracted to brunettes and can't explain why.

    Maybe you should be reading a bit more about the mapping of the brain, instead of philosophy bloggers. You wanted a link, here is a link to Johns Hopkins' primer on the brain.


    Already stated, this is a philosophical discussion, of imagined possibilities, not statements of fact. Imagination plays a distinct role in the way human beings approach the unknown. There are facts n the category of known, until new knowledge changes those facts, or illustrates them as false. You can certainly live your life by what you think you know, but this does not mean you are correct. And to think you are correct, without any doubt is foolish Imo.
    I rather live my life by what I think I know, than live my life fantasizing about fairy tales.

    You’ll probably say I’m living my live the best way I can and I won’t fault you for that, and it will have zero bearing on what I imagine or feel as possibilities. I feel that there is much more to this existence hidden behind the grey curtain of this life (Gandalf mentioned it :)).You in contrast say, I see no curtain, there is no curtain in essence not only do I not believe what I can’t see, but I refuse to contemplate anything beyond what I can see. You also say (correct me if I am in error) I see someone die, they are dead and cease to exist. I’m not prepared to say that, and you’ll ask me for proof which can’t be proven. All that can be said, is that they are no longer here in a form we recognize. End of discussion! :D
    I don't refuse to contemplate anything beyond what I can see, I just don't fantasize about the same things that people who didn't even know the Earth was a globe fantasized 100's of years ago.
    Good for you, that is irrelevant to the level where this discussion exists. And I’ll note that if you have no interest in it at on that level, then don’t waste your time with meaningless counters.
    How is it irrelevant?

    You really don’t want to discuss this topic as I have presented it.
    You mean I don't want to agree with you.

    Save us some time, and just say that ou disagree .I’m ok with that, and will likely soon say thanks for your input sir as a closer, at least to you, because you are rejecting everything I say, which is fine, but it is pointless to go on. :)
    That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

    First you have to answer my question, not deflect from it.
    I am not deflecting anything. You asked about spirituality; spirituality has different meaning to different people; and I thought my position on the metaphysical was very clear, so to make it clearer, if "spirituality means anything metaphysical to you, no, I don't believe in spirituality

    You “know” CC is not possible, I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I don’t need a hypothesis, because I’m not trying to prove what at this point is not provable. I completely accept you rejection of everything I have brought up in this thread. Thanks for your input, good day sir! :)
    Well, I'd think you'd at least have an idea of how it'd work, rather than just wish it.
     
    We all have things to do.

    I don't need to search online to know what "atheist" means. There are atheists who believe that aliens have visited the Earth, or that Big Foot exists... that has nothing to do with them being atheists. I knew a guy who thought the force was real, so what?

    The article you linked, the blogger doesn't seem to know what "non-religious" means either.


    They may not be made to support Christianity, but they certainly are common apologists claims, like claiming that "non-belief" is really a belief.


    I don't think it is poor judgement, on the contrary, I think it is poor judgement to believe without evidence.

    Why would you "justify" my question? But if you don't mind answering it...


    Computers surpassed the computing power of a human brain a long, long time ago. This should come as no surprise; a simple calculator can tell you the answer of an equation in a fraction of a second, your brain can't. Your conscious brain cannot concentrate on 2 things at the same time, while computers can concentrate on many things at the same time.

    What makes us superior to computers, is that we manufacture them, we program them, and they cannot do absolutely anything until we tell them what, how and when to do it. And they won't ask why.

    Unlike brains, computers don't "think" in abstracts. Computers are not going to look at the window and think it is a nice day to go for a walk or the beach. Computers are not attracted to brunettes and can't explain why.

    Maybe you should be reading a bit more about the mapping of the brain, instead of philosophy bloggers. You wanted a link, here is a link to Johns Hopkins' primer on the brain.



    I rather live my life by what I think I know, than live my life fantasizing about fairy tales.


    I don't refuse to contemplate anything beyond what I can see, I just don't fantasize about the same things that people who didn't even know the Earth was a globe fantasized 100's of years ago.

    How is it irrelevant?


    You mean I don't want to agree with you.


    That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.


    I am not deflecting anything. You asked about spirituality; spirituality has different meaning to different people; and I thought my position on the metaphysical was very clear, so to make it clearer, if "spirituality means anything metaphysical to you, no, I don't believe in spirituality


    Well, I'd think you'd at least have an idea of how it'd work, rather than just wish it.
    Thanks for a vigorous defense of your position. :) Some counters, comments to your last, some of it is repetitive, but I left it that way as I replied to different parts of your reply to me.
    • I made this thread not to debate the reality of life as we know it, but to discuss how people feel about the mystery of their lives. There is no circumstance I can think of where an individual can say they have figured it out with confidence, they know what happens at the moment of mortal death. You are free to disagree as you have been with my characterizations. :)
    • I hold nothing against you for non-belief, for myself the conclusions for this topic are undetermined. And Imo, to say there is no god, is just as far out on a limb as claiming there is a god. It’s that simple.
    • I’ve not argued that I believe in anything.
    • Regarding anything piped in to our brains/psyche, I have no definitive answer for how that would happen.
    • Believing or being certain there is no God, or nothing beyond this mortal life is a mistake imo, but it’s not like I can argue the opposite. That’s why I am agnostic. Yet, I do feel there is something more but I lack proof and I can’t tell you what it is other than a sensation there is something more. Granted, this could be self serving, self comforting at work.
    • I would describe you as an Atheist. :)
    • The nature of being an Agnostic is to say our existence is beyond comprehension, We do not have the answers, yet I feel something intangible that I hope will amount to something significant at a future point in time.
    • I am not fearful of what we see as the end. If it truly is non-existence for eternity, it’s easy to argue on this basis non-existence is the normal state.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Back
    Top Bottom