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.

 

[SystemShock]

You haven’t made your case that we know enough to determine the nature of our reality.

You say that because you don't want to accept reality for what it is over your wish of an existence beyond death. Science is very clear: your consciousness starts once your brain is formed, and ends once your brain dies.

in your continuing effort to bring me around to your position.

I don't care what you "feel" or "believe"; but when you make questionable statements about reality and science, I will press you for clarification. No different from a flat Earther telling me he believes the Earth is flat; if he tells me he believes the Earth is flat, ok; if he tells me he believes the Earth is flat and the science I know is wrong, then it is on.

 

[Huntn]

You say that because you don't want to accept reality for what it is over your wish of an existence beyond death. Science is very clear: your consciousness starts once your brain is formed, and ends once your brain dies.



I don't care what you "feel" or "believe"; but when you make questionable statements about reality and science, I will press you for clarification. No different from a flat Earther telling me he believes the Earth is flat; if he tells me he believes the Earth is flat, ok; if he tells me he believes the Earth is flat and the science I know is wrong, then it is on.

Lol, I’ve never said science is wrong, I’ve consistently said it is premature to draw conclusions about the big picture of our existence. Your beef with me is that I have not reached a conclusion, where you feel it is all crystal clear, yes?

You seem to think that we all live in the same reality. Your reality is that the only things that exist are proven to your satisfaction. That is one way to approach it. Where you are certain, I am undecided. Nothing I have stated is “questionable” as in suspect other than I refused to accept reality at face value. In addition I have stated what I know in the first post of this thread. Beyond that is all conjecture and/or wishful thinking.

Now you seem to think that I dismiss science, I don’t. We study our reality so we can establish and understand the rules of the space that we exist within. We are busily figuring out where we are and how things work consistently, most of the time, until we notice an exception. This is all we have to work with.

Where I primarily differ with you, you seem to think it’s all or mostly figured out, especially when it comes to our mortal existence, death is the end as far as you are concerned because this is what you observe. Your loved ones die, they're no longer here, they cease to exist. I agree they no longer exist here as we knew them, but I am unwilling to concede they no longer exist as a coherent entity in any capacity, because I simply don’t know, but I hope for a spiritual element based on a premise of purpose and it has nothing to do with my fear. I am not fearful.

If things are as atheists say, a one time flash of coherence/existence, then our normal state is non-existence, why fear that? And why assume that this flash is a one time occurrence? Imo, the final outcome is unknowable, I will not concede any points about it, until I experience the journey myself.

 

[SystemShock]

Lol, I’ve never said science is wrong, I’ve consistently said it is premature to draw conclusions about the big picture of our existence. Your beef with me is that I have not reached a conclusion, where you feel it is all crystal clear, yes?

What I said, was that you made questionable statements about science, as in "we only know a fraction of all there is to know",, which I questioned, and you have yet to qualify or quantify. I don't have a beef, nor do I care about you reaching a conclusion or not, I just want you to qualify/quantify/validate your statements.

You seem to think that we all live in the same reality.

Yes, we all do live in the same reality. Do you have any evidence of different people living different realities?

Nothing I have stated is “questionable”

Sure it is.

but I hope for a spiritual element based on a premise of purpose and it has nothing to do with my fear. I am not fearful.

And what's this purpose?

 

[Huntn]

What I said, was that you made questionable statements about science, as in "we only know a fraction of all there is to know",, which I questioned, and you have yet to qualify or quantify. I don't have a beef, nor do I care about you reaching a conclusion or not, I just want you to qualify/quantify/validate your statements.

Yes, we all do live in the same reality. Do you have any evidence of different people living different realities?

Sure it is.

And what's this purpose?

It is all questionable, except to those who are prematurely sure they understand the nature of their existence (opinion). I don’t hold that against you, but of the few things I believe in, I believe you are premature in your conclusions. It should satisfy you, that I can’t provide you with a fact that proves my feelings on the topic. Your disagreement is accepted in advance.

 

[SystemShock]

It is all questionable, except to those who are prematurely sure they understand the nature of their existence (opinion). I don’t hold that against you, but of the few things I believe in, I believe you are premature in your conclusions. It should satisfy you, that I can’t provide you with a fact that proves my feelings on the topic. Your disagreement is accepted in advance.

You are telling me the equivalent of "it is premature to know the Earth is a sphere".

 

[Huntn]

You are telling me the equivalent of "it is premature to know the Earth is a sphere".

No, I’m not. You and I live in a house, we can look out a window see a forest. we don’t know what is beyond and that beyond is infinity. We have gotten pretty good at measuring things in our house. We know if we trip on the stairs we go down. It’s because of something we call gravity, although we don’t why, just say it is an invisible force. We see 3 dimensions, but we think there are more. There is a whole hell of a lot we don’t know, but you want to argue with me that because you know all about our house, that is all you need to know. That is fine with me if this is your outlook.

I am arguing beyond this house and beyond known physics, to the unknown in combination with a feeling that can’t be supported by any factual basis, but does have a philosophical basis. You are obviously the wrong person to discuss this with as you have every thing you need to know figured out and are a closed book beyond that.

Go back and read post 1 or better yet, sit back and be confident of your place in this reality. I’lll wait for someone who feels there is something fundamental in this existence they can’t explain.

 

[SystemShock]

No, I’m not.

Yes, you are.

You and I live in a house, we can look out a window see a forest. we don’t know what is beyond and that beyond is infinity. We have gotten pretty good at measuring things in our house. We know if we trip on the stairs we go down. It’s because of something we call gravity, although we don’t why, just say it is an invisible force. We see 3 dimensions, but we think there are more. There is a whole hell of a lot we don’t know, but you want to argue with me that because you know all about our house, that is all you need to know. That is fine with me if this is your outlook.

I am arguing beyond this house and beyond known physics, to the unknown in combination with a feeling that can’t be supported by any factual basis, but does have a philosophical basis. You are obviously the wrong person to discuss this with as you have every thing you need to know figured out and are a closed book beyond that.

Go back and read post 1 or better yet, sit back and be confident of your place in this reality. I’lll wait for someone who feels there is something fundamental in this existence they can’t explain.

I rest my case.

Our brains are not beyond the forest. We know how they work. We can control/manipulate consciousness, moods, senses... your consciousness can be completely changed by simple (and not so simple) induced chemical reactions and electrical stimuli. If consciousness didn't need the physical brain and the chemical reactions/electrical stimuli within it, no one would go into a coma; anesthesia wouldn't work, Alzheimer's would not be; consciousness wouldn't be constrained to the brain, it should be able to go anywhere at any time. -

As for knowledge and "not knowing all there is to know", well, that is going to depend what do you mean by "all there is to know".

For example, I don't know all of the names of all of the streets in the U.S. So, matter of fact, I only know a fraction of the street names in the U.S.

However, I know what a street is, that every town in the U.S. has some sort of street, their use, the different ways they are built, how the differ from lanes or highways or avenues, that many of them have numbers for names, that N-S they are even numbered and E-W they are odd numbered (mostly), that many are named after pubic figures (politicians, entertainers, athletes, activists, etc), that just about every city has as MLK Blvd, and so forth and so on. And, I also have this technology available to me that can tell me the name of every street, lane, highway, etc. across the U.S., which makes not knowing every street in the U.S. irrelevant.

And again, you are free to believe what you want, but don't tell me we know almost nothing or question the science (how our brains work and how our consciousness is just a series of chemical reactions and electrical stimuli) or that I can't see the forest from the trees because you want to believe in something that has no evidence of being so.

 

[Huntn]

Yes, you are.


I rest my case.

Our brains are not beyond the forest. We know how they work. We can control/manipulate consciousness, moods, senses... your consciousness can be completely changed by simple (and not so simple) induced chemical reactions and electrical stimuli. If consciousness didn't need the physical brain and the chemical reactions/electrical stimuli within it, no one would go into a coma; anesthesia wouldn't work, Alzheimer's would not be; consciousness wouldn't be constrained to the brain, it should be able to go anywhere at any time. -

As for knowledge and "not knowing all there is to know", well, that is going to depend what do you mean by "all there is to know".

For example, I don't know all of the names of all of the streets in the U.S. So, matter of fact, I only know a fraction of the street names in the U.S.

However, I know what a street is, that every town in the U.S. has some sort of street, their use, the different ways they are built, how the differ from lanes or highways or avenues, that many of them have numbers for names, that N-S they are even numbered and E-W they are odd numbered (mostly), that many are named after pubic figures (politicians, entertainers, athletes, activists, etc), that just about every city has as MLK Blvd, and so forth and so on. And, I also have this technology available to me that can tell me the name of every street, lane, highway, etc. across the U.S., which makes not knowing every street in the U.S. irrelevant.

And again, you are free to believe what you want, but don't tell me we know almost nothing or question the science (how our brains work and how our consciousness is just a series of chemical reactions and electrical stimuli) or that I can't see the forest from the trees because you want to believe in something that has no evidence of being so.

I rested my case several posts ago.

We don’t know enough to see the big picture. Be my guest to argue against that until you’re blue in the face. We know how things usually work in our neighborhood, we have identified some rules but we don’t know why these rules exist as they do. And we can assume what happens on the other side of the universe, sure we like assuming. My point is is that I have zero issue with accepting science and what we think we know about our environment, the physics of our reality.

The difference between us is that you have made your mind up about the disposition of your life, you are sure your mortal end Is the end. This is with your awareness of infinity, infinite time and space. You are convinced that your rise to consciousness was a one time happening and when it over, it’s finished. In contrast I don’t believe in anything, it is beyond my comprehension, but I have a vague feeling this is not the totality of our existence, I hope for more, and I hope for more for all of us, and that includes you.

 

[Booker]

So I see what you're doing, and I don't know if you're even aware, but it's actually straight out of the apologetics playbook. You're arguing that we because can't rule something out, therefore it is possible. Which is fine to do. But then you jump from, because it is possible, it is therefore probable, and therefore it must be true - and that is straight up apologetics.

And that's not the right way to go about this. I think SS and myself would admit that, sure, it's possible that there could more after death, but we have to weigh that against the reverse, the possibility that there isn't, because they both can't be simultaneously true. So, if we start with the claim that based on all available evidence, I'd say there is at least a 99% certainty that death is the end, that does leave open a 1% possibility that there is more. But 99/1 is still pretty overwhelming odds, allowing one to comfortably assert that death is in fact the end.

To state the opposite you'd have to move the probabilities to at least 49/51 in favor of some post death experience. And there is no rational way to get to there without ignoring all evidence we have in favor of elevating the evidential value of "a vague feeling" (which in all actuality is really no more than a not so vague desire not to expire, which one could argue is no more than a manifestation of our genetic coding).

So using another argument, one can argue that all available evidence we have leads us to believe that the earth is in fact spherical and not flat. All the evidence points one way to a spherical earth, but one could still leave a very small percentage chance that we've been deceived on numerous fronts, leaving the possibility that the earth is in fact flat. But each area that we would have to admit we've been deceived in -- i.e. a conspiracy of mathmeticians, scientists, atronomists, etc. going back several millenia -- works to decrease the possibility of the grand deception (it's like multiplying a fraction times a fraction, so that you end up with a smaller figure), so that in the end we're looking at something well over 99/1 in favor of a spherical earth. So while that does leave small probability of less than 1/99 that the earth is flat, we can still very comfortably state that the earth is in fact spherical, and evidence well beyond "a vague feeling" to the contrary would be needed to reverse the probabilities to the point we could state the opposite.

 

[SystemShock]

So I see what you're doing, and I don't know if you're even aware, but it's actually straight out of the apologetics playbook. You're arguing that we because can't rule something out, therefore it is possible. Which is fine to do. But then you jump from, because it is possible, it is therefore probable, and therefore it must be true - and that is straight up apologetics.

And that's not the right way to go about this. I think SS and myself would admit that, sure, it's possible that there could more after death, but we have to weigh that against the reverse, the possibility that there isn't, because they both can't be simultaneously true. So, if we start with the claim that based on all available evidence, I'd say there is at least a 99% certainty that death is the end, that does leave open a 1% possibility that there is more. But 99/1 is still pretty overwhelming odds, allowing one to comfortably assert that death is in fact the end.

To state the opposite you'd have to move the probabilities to at least 49/51 in favor of some post death experience. And there is no rational way to get to there without ignoring all evidence we have in favor of elevating the evidential value of "a vague feeling" (which in all actuality is really no more than a not so vague desire not to expire, which one could argue is no more than a manifestation of our genetic coding).

So using another argument, one can argue that all available evidence we have leads us to believe that the earth is in fact spherical and not flat. All the evidence points one way to a spherical earth, but one could still leave a very small percentage chance that we've been deceived on numerous fronts, leaving the possibility that the earth is in fact flat. But each area that we would have to admit we've been deceived in -- i.e. a conspiracy of mathmeticians, scientists, atronomists, etc. going back several millenia -- works to decrease the possibility of the grand deception (it's like multiplying a fraction times a fraction, so that you end up with a smaller figure), so that in the end we're looking at something well over 99/1 in favor of a spherical earth. So while that does leave small probability of less than 1/99 that the earth is flat, we can still very comfortably state that the earth is in fact spherical, and evidence well beyond "a vague feeling" to the contrary would be needed to reverse the probabilities to the point we could state the opposite.

I'd put it at way much less than 1%. I even say 0%, because of what we know about brains and consciousness, which is not "a fraction of all that there is to know". about brains and consciousness. Consciousness starts in a very physical brain, when physical and chemical reactions in the brain and the senses begin to develop consciousness. There is no reason to believe that consciousness can survive the brain topping to fire up those chemical reactions and electrical impulses beyond a desire not to die.

 

[Booker]

I'd put it at way much less than 1%. I even say 0%, because of what we know about brains and consciousness, which is not "a fraction of all that there is to know". about brains and consciousness. Consciousness starts in a very physical brain, when physical and chemical reactions in the brain and the senses begin to develop consciousness. There is no reason to believe that consciousness can survive the brain topping to fire up those chemical reactions and electrical impulses beyond a desire not to die.

Yeah, that was a generous 1%, but I didn't think we needed to get down to decimals to make the point. It stands that to have reason to believe that death is not the end, then you need to be able to move the probability to at least 51/49 in favor of a post death existence, and to do that you would need evidence. But all evidence we have is in favor of the opposite.

So while you can leave the door open a crack to allow that there might be evidence that we just are not able to access, hypothetical evidence is still not evidence and can not be used to counter or negate evidence we do have, which again all points in the opposite direction.

 

[Huntn]

So I see what you're doing, and I don't know if you're even aware, but it's actually straight out of the apologetics playbook. You're arguing that we because can't rule something out, therefore it is possible. Which is fine to do. But then you jump from, because it is possible, it is therefore probable, and therefore it must be true - and that is straight up apologetics.

And that's not the right way to go about this. I think SS and myself would admit that, sure, it's possible that there could more after death, but we have to weigh that against the reverse, the possibility that there isn't, because they both can't be simultaneously true. So, if we start with the claim that based on all available evidence, I'd say there is at least a 99% certainty that death is the end, that does leave open a 1% possibility that there is more. But 99/1 is still pretty overwhelming odds, allowing one to comfortably assert that death is in fact the end.

To state the opposite you'd have to move the probabilities to at least 49/51 in favor of some post death experience. And there is no rational way to get to there without ignoring all evidence we have in favor of elevating the evidential value of "a vague feeling" (which in all actuality is really no more than a not so vague desire not to expire, which one could argue is no more than a manifestation of our genetic coding).

So using another argument, one can argue that all available evidence we have leads us to believe that the earth is in fact spherical and not flat. All the evidence points one way to a spherical earth, but one could still leave a very small percentage chance that we've been deceived on numerous fronts, leaving the possibility that the earth is in fact flat. But each area that we would have to admit we've been deceived in -- i.e. a conspiracy of mathmeticians, scientists, atronomists, etc. going back several millenia -- works to decrease the possibility of the grand deception (it's like multiplying a fraction times a fraction, so that you end up with a smaller figure), so that in the end we're looking at something well over 99/1 in favor of a spherical earth. So while that does leave small probability of less than 1/99 that the earth is flat, we can still very comfortably state that the earth is in fact spherical, and evidence well beyond "a vague feeling" to the contrary would be needed to reverse the probabilities to the point we could state the opposite.

Dude, to both you and @SystemShock, just let it go. You said a couple of posts ago, there was nothing more to be said as far as you were concerned.

And I’m not sure who you are describing but it‘s not me. I bolded the applicable part. That is your determination of what I said, really? Nowhere have I argued that ANYTHING is true, especially from the “possible-probable-true“ logic chain your are trying to hang on me. And for some reason you keep bringing up the flat earth and stop calling me an apologist (no clue what that is in this instance) and stop accusing me of beliefs. If you want to accuse me of something it is lacking belief which I described in the first post.

You two are getting confused about what I am saying, but really I think you are so focused on that I don’t believe, ie the certainty of your views, that death is the ultimate end of our struggles, that I must believe the opposite. Nope. At best I hope for something more, but by your responses It sounds like you are both being driven to distraction. (soothing calm voice - let it go…)

For the record, I accept everything provable by science as the best info we have, the only info we have to make concrete estimations about what is what. However I’ve got a feeling (as the Beatles sing) that I won’t ignore, it acts as a doorstop to keep death’s door from slamming just, at least in my estimations. Why do I have this feeling? I can’t say, it could be a form of desire, a sense, or it could be something else.

I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but I’m fine with your (plural) disagreements. I’m not trying to prove anything, so if you disagree just say that and be done with it. Hell, the best I can expect is someone saying, you know, I feel something too, the sentiment that there is something more to this existence. Maybe a philosophical contemplation about the meaning of this life (I already know your answer ).

That’s it, there won’t be any specifics discussion as to what happens and how. And that is plenty good enough, because I hope there is more, but that is it, and no one has to lose their minds over that.

 

[Booker]

Dude, to both you and @SystemShock, just let it go. You said a couple of posts ago, there was nothing more to be said as far as you were concerned.

And I’m not sure who you are describing but it‘s not me. I bolded the applicable part. That is your determination of what I said, really? Nowhere have I argued that ANYTHING is true, especially from the “possible-probable-true“ logic chain your are trying to hang on me. And for some reason you keep bringing up the flat earth and stop calling me an apologist (no clue what that is in this instance) and stop accusing me of beliefs. If you want to accuse me of something it is lacking belief which I described in the first post.

You two are getting confused about what I am saying, but really I think you are so focused on that I don’t believe, ie the certainty of your views, that death is the ultimate end of our struggles, that I must believe the opposite. Nope. At best I hope for something more, but by your responses It sounds like you are both being driven to distraction. (soothing calm voice - let it go…)

For the record, I accept everything provable by science as the best info we have, the only info we have to make concrete estimations about what is what. However I’ve got a feeling (as the Beatles sing) that I won’t ignore, it acts as a doorstop to keep death’s door from slamming just, at least in my estimations. Why do I have this feeling? I can’t say, it could be a form of desire, a sense, or it could be something else.

I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but I’m fine with your (plural) disagreements. I’m not trying to prove anything, so if you disagree just say that and be done with it. Hell, the best I can expect is someone saying, you know, I feel something too, the sentiment that there is something more to this existence. Maybe a philosophical contemplation about the meaning of this life (I already know your answer ).

That’s it, there won’t be any specifics discussion as to what happens and how. And that is plenty good enough, because I hope there is more, but that is it, and no one has to lose their minds over that.

Yeah I did, but then you said something that drew me back in. That's how conversations go. And I do think this is a friendly conversation and exchange of ideas -- I know you're trying to keep it so. Believe me, there are plenty of people with bricks for brains that I wouldn't waste the time to bother with, but you seem genuinely thoughtful and curious, and mentally mature enough to handle higher level discussions that might solicit uncomfortable or blunt replies -- so take it as a compliment that you've engaged me to this level .

Also, I don't think I'd said anything about apologetics or flat earth previously (maybe SS did?), but apologetics is basically the art of rationalizing a belief in something we either have no reason to believe or in fact have reason to explicitly not believe. In the extreme it's how people can rationalize their belief that a man rose from the dead after three days and then some forty days later flew up to outer space like Superman when there otherwise isn't any credible evidence of such events, everything we know about the world tells us that that kind of stuff doesn't happen, and we know people lie and make stuff up, so we actually have explicit reasons not to believe that. You're certainly not engaging in apologetics anywhere close to that degree, but when you say that you have "a feeling," from where I'm standing it sounds an awful lot like "I know in my heart Jesus/Zeus/Brahma/Moroni/Xenu is real so therefore he is." Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from even if you disagree with that assessment.

And yes, let's not lose our minds -- it's certainly not worth it, and there's no prize to be had for being proven right. We've all stated what we believe or don't believe and why we feel justified in our positions, and honestly I would truly love for your feeling to be right and to one day find out I was dead wrong (pun intended), so I'm good to leave it there.

 

[Huntn]

Yeah I did, but then you said something that drew me back in. That's how conversations go. And I do think this is a friendly conversation and exchange of ideas -- I know you're trying to keep it so. Believe me, there are plenty of people with bricks for brains that I wouldn't waste the time to bother with, but you seem genuinely thoughtful and curious, and mentally mature enough to handle higher level discussions that might solicit uncomfortable or blunt replies -- so take it as a compliment that you've engaged me to this level .

Also, I don't think I'd said anything about apologetics or flat earth previously (maybe SS did?), but apologetics is basically the art of rationalizing a belief in something we either have no reason to believe or in fact have reason to explicitly not believe. In the extreme it's how people can rationalize their belief that a man rose from the dead after three days and then some forty days later flew up to outer space like Superman when there otherwise isn't any credible evidence of such events, everything we know about the world tells us that that kind of stuff doesn't happen, and we know people lie and make stuff up, so we actually have explicit reasons not to believe that. You're certainly not engaging in apologetics anywhere close to that degree, but when you say that you have "a feeling," from where I'm standing it sounds an awful lot like "I know in my heart Jesus/Zeus/Brahma/Moroni/Xenu is real so therefore he is." Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from even if you disagree with that assessment.

And yes, let's not lose our minds -- it's certainly not worth it, and there's no prize to be had for being proven right. We've all stated what we believe or don't believe and why we feel justified in our positions, and honestly I would truly love for your feeling to be right and to one day find out I was dead wrong (pun intended), so I'm good to leave it there.

Thank you for a civil non-combative post. From my perspective there is a huge amount that I don’t know, more than do know. I admit that I am enamored with the ideas behind Solipsism, The Matrix, Gandalf’s view of the gray curtain of this life being opened to see a far green country beyond, and the Earth Simulator (my term), ultimately that this reality is not exactly what it appears to be on the surface. This does not make me a believer, but it keeps my mind open and gives me hope.

I think most people like their consciousness and awareness, and with a choice, out of an eternity of time, would like it to last longer than hardly a blip in the time line. Yes, this does drive religion, and while there is nothing wrong with thinking there is more to this existence, the downfall of religion is when they act like they know all the answers, assign authority to an imagined intelligence, and then try to force others into a straightjacket of their making. At the human level, for the most part, this has always been about obtaining power over others.