What Do You Know? (1 Viewer)

[Huntn]

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)..

• 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.

 

[Huntn]

For what basically equates to an unfathomable amount of time, there was nothing as far as you/we were concerned, zero awareness. And then one day you woke up to this amazing adventure, and after just a few moments in this time line, a brief human lifetime, you will cease to exist once again back into the nothingness you came from. Case closed?

Are we capable of making plausible big picture assumptions about this life in this reality?
Is there a safe assumption? If so, what would that safe assumption be?
And can this assumption be based with confidence on what our limited science tells us?
If so, if the total sum of our existence is a matter of a few years, who cares? Why bother? Just what is the point?

My point is if there is no continuation of consciousness there is no point for any of the experiences you cherish, or the experiences that you learned something from, made you a better entity, or where terrorized by. For this reason, I bet there is something more going on behind the gray curtain of this life, and the adventure does not stop here.

 

[SystemShock]

For what basically equates to an unfathomable amount of time, there was nothing as far as you/we were concerned, zero awareness. And then one day you woke up to this amazing adventure, and after just a few moments in this time line, a brief human lifetime, you will cease to exist once again back into the nothingness you came from. Case closed?

Very much so.

Are we capable of making plausible big picture assumptions about this life in this reality?
Is there a safe assumption? If so, what would that safe assumption be?
And can this assumption be based with confidence on what our limited science tells us?
If so, if the total sum of our existence is a matter of a few years, who cares? Why bother? Just what is the point?

How do you define plausible?
Why do you think our science is "limited"?

My point is if there is no continuation of consciousness there is no point for any of the experiences you cherish, or the experiences that you learned something from, made you a better entity, or where terrorized by. For this reason, I bet there is something more going on behind the gray curtain of this life, and the adventure does not stop here.

The point of life is what you make it. What was the point of dinosaurs' lives? What's the point of dogs' lives? What do you think makes homo sapiens so special that our consciousness has to continue? What about the consciousness of early humans, who only saw hardship? Who regularly died of tooth infections, hunger, at birth? A broken bone made them useless? Or the consciousness of Cro-Magnons or Neanderthals?

How do you envision this post death adventure?

 

[Booker]

As consciousness relies upon a functioning brain, once the brain no longer functions it follows that consciousness no longer exists. We see it in brain injury patients -- it doesn't matter if a machine can keep your body alive, once you're brain dead all that's left is an empty shell. It's frankly silly to pretend otherwise.

 

[SystemShock]

As consciousness relies upon a functioning brain, once the brain no longer functions it follows that consciousness no longer exists. We see it in brain injury patients -- it doesn't matter if a machine can keep your body alive, once you're brain dead all that's left is an empty shell. It's frankly silly to pretend otherwise.

With deists, it's usually some sort of heaven/hell/after live. But when someone claims not to be religious, or not coming from a deist perspective, I am always interested in how they see this consciousness after death working.

Even a concussion can have severe effects on your consciousness, or diseases like dementia or Alzheimer's, so I cannot see how someone's consciousness can survive death, or how it'd work, since our consciousness is also tied into our senses; without a brain firing electrical and chemical reactions, and without sight, hearing, smell, taste, or feeling, how does out-of-body consciousness work?

 

[Huntn]

Very much so.


How do you define plausible?
Why do you think our science is "limited"?



The point of life is what you make it. What was the point of dinosaurs' lives? What's the point of dogs' lives? What do you think makes homo sapiens so special that our consciousness has to continue? What about the consciousness of early humans, who only saw hardship? Who regularly died of tooth infections, hunger, at birth? A broken bone made them useless? Or the consciousness of Cro-Magnons or Neanderthals?

How do you envision this post death adventure?

I don’t envision anything specific, including that once your mortal life is complete, there is nothing more because I don’t know enough to draw such a conclusion. I made that clear in my first post of this thread. You are welcome to and I don’t begrudge you, your assumptions.

You also want to discuss the topic in a logical basis based on what can be proven, at least what you think is proven. The best we can do is say we exist in a system with a set of rules we think are understand, that are consistent, until we discover they're not, or an exception to the rule, and we “know” the rule but don’t understand the why behind the rule.

I am talking about belief, or lack there of based on facts or lack of facts. We have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes a fact, My argument continues to be that what we see as interpreted by our brain is in our relatively shallow perception of reality based on what our body and mind is able to sense and for lack of a specific connection I tend to think there is an external element to this existence, as we are not completely contained within this mortal framework because I have a sense there is something more to this life, that this is not all there is, and not only is there no need for me to prove the unprovable, there is no need for me to be keep repeating my position because you disagree with me. I accept your disagreement.

 

[Huntn]

As consciousness relies upon a functioning brain, once the brain no longer functions it follows that consciousness no longer exists. We see it in brain injury patients -- it doesn't matter if a machine can keep your body alive, once you're brain dead all that's left is an empty shell. It's frankly silly to pretend otherwise.

Consciousness as we understand it is not 100% conclusive. In the realm of what we think we know, you can’t ever think it is case closed or you maybe surprised. The case is far from closed because we don’t see the big picture.- my unprovable perception of my existence,

 

[SystemShock]

I don’t envision anything specific, including that once your mortal life is complete, there is nothing more because I don’t know enough to draw such a conclusion. I made that clear in my first post of this thread. You are welcome to and I don’t begrudge you, your assumptions.

You also want to discuss the topic in a logical basis based on what can be proven, at least what you think is proven. The best we can do is say we exist in a system with a set of rules we think are understand, that are consistent, until we discover they're not, or an exception to the rule, and we “know” the rule but don’t understand the why behind the rule.

I am talking about belief, or lack there of based on facts or lack of facts. We have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes a fact, My argument continues to be that what we see as interpreted by our brain is in our relatively shallow perception of reality based on what our body and mind is able to sense and for lack of a specific connection I tend to think there is an external element to this existence, as we are not completely contained within this mortal framework because I have a sense there is something more to this life, that this is not all there is, and not only is there no need for me to prove the unprovable, there is no need for me to be keep repeating my position because you disagree with me. I accept your disagreement.

If you just wish it would be so or have blind faith it is so (same thing, I guess), that's up to you, and I'll just Hitchens' Razor you and that's that; but then you throw out apologists arguments 101 at me, making statements about our "limited science", telling me facts are not facts.

 

[Booker]

My argument continues to be that what we see as interpreted by our brain is in our relatively shallow perception of reality based on what our body and mind is able to sense and for lack of a specific connection I tend to think there is an external element to this existence, as we are not completely contained within this mortal framework because I have a sense there is something more to this life, that this is not all there is, and not only is there no need for me to prove the unprovable, there is no need for me to be keep repeating my position because you disagree with me. I accept your disagreement.

But your argument isn't based on anything other than magical thinking and a wish-dream-desire to escape death. You "sense there is something more," but how so, and through which sense? Do you see, hear, smell, touch or taste dead people? Or is it true that the only people who claim to commune with the dead are either con-artist grifters like John Edwards and Miss Cleo, or considered mentally ill?

What do you remember from before you were born? Nothing, because your brain wasn't developed. What will you remember after you die? Nothing, because your brain will no longer be receiving oxygen through your blood and will shut down and start to decompose. That shouldn't be hard to grasp.

What's the difference between Terry Schiavo and Damar Hamlin? Both went into cardiac arrest and died, but Hamlin was nearly immediately resuscitated, before his brain had been denied oxygen long enough to cause serious damage. Schiavo was not and remained in a "persistant vegetative state" until many years later when her feeding tube was removed. So did Schiavo's consciousness go to another realm? Or did her brain just suffer irreversible damage while it was denied oxygen to the point that it no longer functioned?

As Rene DesCartes said, "I think therefore I am." It's not that complicated -- when your brain goes, so goes "you." Pretending otherwise might make the inevitability of one's death less daunting, but at that point you're just playing make believe, not engaging in rational observation of the world around us.

 

[Huntn]

But your argument isn't based on anything other than magical thinking and a wish-dream-desire to escape death. You "sense there is something more," but how so, and through which sense? Do you see, hear, smell, touch or taste dead people? Or is it true that the only people who claim to commune with the dead are either con-artist grifters like John Edwards and Miss Cleo, or considered mentally ill?

What do you remember from before you were born? Nothing, because your brain wasn't developed. What will you remember after you die? Nothing, because your brain will no longer be receiving oxygen through your blood and will shut down and start to decompose. That shouldn't be hard to grasp.

What's the difference between Terry Schiavo and Damar Hamlin? Both went into cardiac arrest and died, but Hamlin was nearly immediately resuscitated, before his brain had been denied oxygen long enough to cause serious damage. Schiavo was not and remained in a "persistant vegetative state" until many years later when her feeding tube was removed. So did Schiavo's consciousness go to another realm? Or did her brain just suffer irreversible damage while it was denied oxygen to the point that it no longer functioned?

As Rene DesCartes said, "I think therefore I am." It's not that complicated -- when your brain goes, so goes "you." Pretending otherwise might make the inevitability of one's death less daunting, but at that point you're just playing make believe, not engaging in rational observation of the world around us.

When you dream you exist in a dream state and you forget for a while you have a separate real life, then you wake up. Hmm. Not asking for a counter. You and @SystemShock believe you are centered in your body, your body makes up the entirety of your being.

Per my initial post I’m in not in a position where I can claim anything specific beyond the shallow obvious conclusions, such as the body dies, and those left behind observe the cessation of life as they understand it. No argument. This is the limit of your consideration, no problem by me.

Oh yes, science is all we have to go by if we are trying to figure out our existence, our reality. You all both claim there is plenty enough to make your conclusions. I say when we know at best a fraction of all there is to know, it is premature to draw conclusions beyond a shallow level.

So unless you all have something new to add, the ashes to ashes Atheist position has been clearly stated. Because of a philosophical idea, I do not believe out of all eternity, that our time of existence is limited to the equivalent of a nano second. It’s also a philosophical position that if our lives equate to a flash in the pan, there is no purpose in living.

I hear the arguments oh, the human race carries on, you’ve helped the species move forward, you helped some number of people during rough times in their life, you basically took up some space during your life. If you and everyone you know ends up dead and oblivious, who cares what the human species does during its brief existence? It seems like some of us enjoy existing so we do our best to make the most of it. But if we are nothing more than mortal, it seems like a waste of time to me. I won’t argue against your counters.

Having said that I have nothing more to add, you don’t need to ask more questions, you have your philosophy that serves you, I don’t really know if you really exist or are just part of the Earth Simulator designed to entertain me, and I’m good with that.

 

[Booker]

When you dream you exist in a dream state and you forget for a while you have a separate real life, then you wake up. Hmm. Not asking for a counter. You and @SystemShock believe you are centered in your body, your body makes up the entirety of your being.

Per my initial post I’m in not in a position where I can claim anything specific beyond the shallow obvious conclusions, such as the body dies, and those left behind observe the cessation of life as they understand it. No argument. This is the limit of your consideration, no problem by me.

Oh yes, science is all we have to go by if we are trying to figure out our existence, our reality. You all both claim there is plenty enough to make your conclusions. I say when we know at best a fraction of all there is to know, it is premature to draw conclusions beyond a shallow level.

So unless you all have something new to add, the ashes to ashes Atheist position has been clearly stated. Because of a philosophical idea, I do not believe out of all eternity, that our time of existence is limited to the equivalent of a nano second. It’s also a philosophical position that if our lives equate to a flash in the pan, there is no purpose in living.

I hear the arguments oh, the human race carries on, you’ve helped the species move forward, you helped some number of people during rough times in their life, you basically took up some space during your life. If you and everyone you know ends up dead and oblivious, who cares what the human species does during its brief existence? It seems like some of us enjoy existing so we do our best to make the most of it. But if we are nothing more than mortal, it seems like a waste of time to me. I won’t argue against your counters.

Having said that I have nothing more to add, you don’t need to ask more questions, you have your philosophy that serves you, I don’t really know if you really exist or are just part of the Earth Simulator designed to entertain me, and I’m good with that.

But you don't exist in a dream state when you sleep -- you're still there, where ever you fell asleep. You're just asleep, and dreams are a byproduct of sleeping, and they are fully self-contained within your brain, not on some other plane of existence. Dogs dream when they sleep, so it's not some condition unique to humanity.

And you still haven't provided a reason for believing in post-death experience aside from claiming a "philosophical idea" that really boils down to "I'm too important to fade into oblivion when I die."

Bertram Russell: "Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones."

 

[SystemShock]

Oh yes, science is all we have to go by if we are trying to figure out our existence, our reality. You all both claim there is plenty enough to make your conclusions. I say when we know at best a fraction of all there is to know, it is premature to draw conclusions beyond a shallow level.

So unless you all have something new to add, the ashes to ashes Atheist position has been clearly stated. Because of a philosophical idea, I do not believe out of all eternity, that our time of existence is limited to the equivalent of a nano second. It’s also a philosophical position that if our lives equate to a flash in the pan, there is no purpose in living.

So, again, I'll ask you to support your statement "we know at best a fraction of all there is to know".

As for lifetimes being the equivalent of a nano second, what do you expect, living in a universe so big and possibly timeless that you are physically insignificant? Not even a grain of sand on a beach? Our entire planet may not qualify as a grain of sand on a beach when compared to the entirety of the universe.

There is a type of fly that lives 30-120 minutes; then there is a shark that lives 250 years... go figure.

 

[Huntn]

So, again, I'll ask you to support your statement "we know at best a fraction of all there is to know".

As for lifetimes being the equivalent of a nano second, what do you expect, living in a universe so big and possibly timeless that you are physically insignificant? Not even a grain of sand on a beach? Our entire planet may not qualify as a grain of sand on a beach when compared to the entirety of the universe.

There is a type of fly that lives 30-120 minutes; then there is a shark that lives 250 years... go figure.

How about you support your premise that we know more than enough to understand the reality we exist in?

 

[Huntn]

But you don't exist in a dream state when you sleep -- you're still there, where ever you fell asleep. You're just asleep, and dreams are a byproduct of sleeping, and they are fully self-contained within your brain, not on some other plane of existence. Dogs dream when they sleep, so it's not some condition unique to humanity.

And you still haven't provided a reason for believing in post-death experience aside from claiming a "philosophical idea" that really boils down to "I'm too important to fade into oblivion when I die."

Bertram Russell: "Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones."

I welcome your opinion. All I have is a philosophical idea based on a feeling I possess. There is no provable case here. And while I may come across as believing in life after death, what I prefer to call the continuation of consciousness, I don’t believe. My feelings about what could be are not nearly enough to call it belief, just a hope, because it is my sincere belief that if awareness came by chance or even on purpose, if it is a one time flash, with an eternity of oblivion before and after, then while I can appreciate the experience while it lasts, it is a complete pointless waste of time that achieves, means nothing to everyone involved. So what if we make it to the stars? And I admit that the joke could be that there is no point.

My guess this is why the quality of self awareness, consciousness (which we experience, but can’t explain) a feeling of “I” tends for many humans to infer some kind of feeling, a mythical or abstract longevity and/or purpose, even though we see mortality and a physical end to this life (as we understand life). My guess is as good as yours, that is why it makes me chuckle when Atheists are so sure that the end of your mortal life is the end because of “all the evidence”, ha! …which includes the possibility that it is the end, and your time here means nada.

This is why I am Agnostic, there is too much that is unknown, unexplainable, and subsequently I regard Atheists with their certainty of “end”, just as far out on a limb as theists planning on Destination Heaven…

 

[SystemShock]

How about you support your premise that we know more than enough to understand the reality we exist in?

Sure. Science. The different disciplines tells me how life and reality work. It tells me how brains work, conscious or unconscious. It tells me how the senses I use to perceive reality work, and has created instruments to enhance those senses. It lets me see from the smallest particle to the biggest star. It tells me how this reality is put together. And it shows me all of that in testable, repeatable ways. And there is an army of people trying to disprove each other at every turn to make sure we get the best possible explanation of the reality we live in. And looking at were we are as humans, I say science and the scientific method explain the reality we live in.

Now, that out of the way, again, I'll ask you to support your statement "we know at best a fraction of all there is to know".
It's a paradox, really: in order to know we only know a fraction of all there is to know, we have to know all there is to know to determine we only know a fraction of all there is to know..

 

[Huntn]

Sure. Science. The different disciplines tells me how life and reality work. It tells me how brains work, conscious or unconscious. It tells me how the senses I use to perceive reality work, and has created instruments to enhance those senses. It lets me see from the smallest particle to the biggest star. It tells me how this reality is put together. And it shows me all of that in testable, repeatable ways. And there is an army of people trying to disprove each other at every turn to make sure we get the best possible explanation of the reality we live in. And looking at were we are as humans, I say science and the scientific method explain the reality we live in.

Now, that out of the way, again, I'll ask you to support your statement "we know at best a fraction of all there is to know".
It's a paradox, really: in order to know we only know a fraction of all there is to know, we have to know all there is to know to determine we only know a fraction of all there is to know..

You haven’t made your case that we know enough to determine the nature of our reality. You are overconfident imo. We know some things, we know rules that seem to be consistent as far as we can measure them. If this is enough for you, if you argue that this is all there is, what we can measure without a doubt, that whatever can’t be seen does not exist, than I’m happy for you.
I have nothing more that I can say that adds to the discussion, I have no proof other than a feeling which is definitely not proof, and I have no desire to continue in a circular fashion, in your continuing effort to bring me around to your position. So I accept your disagreement in advance. You’ve made your position very clear. Thank you.

 

[Huntn]

As consciousness relies upon a functioning brain, once the brain no longer functions it follows that consciousness no longer exists. We see it in brain injury patients -- it doesn't matter if a machine can keep your body alive, once you're brain dead all that's left is an empty shell. It's frankly silly to pretend otherwise.

Does it? We’d have to understand consciousness before we can determine what it requires. What makes a human with consciousness different than a computer, with advanced AI with a moral system included in its programming, and sensors to sense the world around it? How are we different from a computer running it’s program? The phrase I’ve used is are the lights on or off? At what point does it attain consciousness?

 

[Booker]

Does it? We’d have to understand consciousness before we can determine what it requires. What makes a human with consciousness different than a computer, with advanced AI with a moral system included in its programming, and sensors to sense the world around it? How are we different from a computer running it’s program? The phrase I’ve used is are the lights on or off? At what point does it attain consciousness?

Consciousness is defined as “the state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings,” so in regard to your scenario, once the AI were to become aware of itself (as it's already aware of it's surroudings) it would by definition be conscious (note that morality is not a requirement for "conciousness").

…I have no proof other than a feeling which is definitely not proof…

Your argument boils down to "because I really, really don't want to die when I die, there must be away to avoid it." As you've stated, there is nothing more to add to this discussion.

 

[Huntn]

Consciousness is defined as “the state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings,” so in regard to your scenario, once the AI were to become aware of itself (as it's already aware of it's surroudings) it would by definition be conscious (note that morality is not a requirement for "conciousness").

Your argument boils down to "because I really, really don't want to die when I die, there must be away to avoid it." As you've stated, there is nothing more to add to this discussion.

Well regarding consciousness, this could be included in the AI thread:

• A machine runs it’s program it reacts to stimulus so if a crash sensor in a car detects an obstacle and in response the brakes are automatically applied.
• A chat program hears a question, it recognizes the words and picks or formulates an appropriate response.
• AI programs are given a morality, a desires, a contentment routine, etc. And it is given sensors.

If you are like me*, there is a space centered on our head where a variety of things go on what we describe as consciousness, a wide variety of processes, a sense of being, wants, desires, emotions, and motivations. Biologically these elements developed, at least we think they did.

*If this is not the Earth Simulator and/or you are a human being like myself and a participant in, but not part of the simulation.

The significant question here is at what point does the machine become like us (lights on) or just a computer program that’s running (lights off)? Can it become like us? Of note, emulating consciousness, ie, by all exterior appearances, looks and acts like it is conscious, does that count? Is it the same thing? I will admit, to the external observer emulating consciousness might be indistinguishable, but I see a difference. But I also admit, we might just be biological computers, without any kind of an external influence, and this means that a machine we construct might be able to achieve consciousness.

Regarding my feelings about dieing, I understand that every living organism dies as far as we know. I am prepared for it, and accept my eventual mortal ending. Do I have a preference? Yes, my guess is that most people do have a similar feeling, but if this brief flash in time, is all there is, so be it. But don’t mistake this for fear.

Yet, I do feel that in the infinite span of time, to arise from nothing to a state of self awareness and wonder, to live a life of purpose, that the experience is too magnificint to call or be assured this a one time event. One of the key elements tied to this is the concept of spirit, and it is based on nothing more than hope and desire, not wanting there to be an abrupt end of consciousness. To reinforce my feeling, this is not belief, it is hope because I’ve said that if this is all there is with nothing before and nothing after, there is no purpose in living at all. 0-100 years of awareness, why bother, who cares? Why would anyone care what happens to the human species in 1000 years, (if we make it that far), if we all end up dead in the end?

I really like the religious idea of the Earth Simulator, although they don’t use that term, I coined it. Souls who want to go on vacation, learn something about themselves in a sudden death simulation, or have a mortal adventure, sign up for a tour. Just like when you dream, your real existence is turned off, and the simutation floods your senses, until it‘s over.