Regarding Franko...
- Thread starter Titanpoint
- Start date
-
- Tags
- franko
wraith
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Messages
- 991
Loki said:
Would you fight a friend of yours that you saw on the street and claim that it was your free-will to do so?
You would fight him if your brain was wired in away (ie your algorithm) to think "smack up friends that you see on the street."
Is this still free will? Do you deny that youre brain goes through a series of steps based on how you interpret past experiences?
How often do you jump out of planes?
Do you wear a bra when you go out?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Whoops. Franko has slipped into agur mode. Poetry and poor English.Franko said:
CWL
Funkateer
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,401
Loki said:
Loki,
One could in fact argue that ANY human (=intellectual) concept looses its meaning from a purely materialistic/deterministic poinf ot view. For instance does the concept "blue" exist from any other perspective than the human? Isn't it exactly the same with "free will", "consciousness", "English", "funk music", "the JREF Forum" or whatever? All such concepts loose their meaning if we reduce everything to "chemicals in our brains".
Rejecting free will on materialistic grounds means that one obviously has no grasp of the concept and indeed as you aptly point out, no understanding of compatibilism (or at any rate that one is unwilling to understand).
Franko’s quotes in ordinary type
BillyJoe’s reply in bold type
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TLOP controls YOU controls CAR
You can’t say that you are superior to the left side, AND superior to the right side at the same time. At least, you cannot do it and maintain any sort of sense of Logical Consistency.
Complexity increases form left to right.
Flying saucers aren’t real Billyjoe. Some people just imagine they see them. Same with “free will”.
Yeah but what about the ILLUSION of free will?
Not really [it doesn’t seem like “free will”], but then again I wouldn’t call a “square” a “4-sided triangle” either.
Well I’ll have to take your word for it.
When you wrote this post you did not feel as if you were using “free will” you felt AS IF you were following your FATE. In fact, in your opinion, you ARE following your FATE.
But I still find it hard to believe that you did not once feel as if you had “free will”. Before you arrived, through your logic, at the conclusion that you are just following your fate.
My “decisions” were preordained by events in my past. All of my “decisions” are merely the inevitable result and logical consequence of my previous “decisions”.
Well that is your logical conclusion.
But what was your gut feeling before you employed your logic? Before you were capable of logic?
You aren’t making “decisions” either. The only difference is, I realize this and perceive accordingly. You on the other hand are programmed to pretend as if something FALSE is actually TRUE. It is a serious flaw in your algorithm. Fortunately, in your case, the error can be corrected.
I said “making” decisions.
That means I do not really think I am making decisions. As I said, it’s all physics and chemistry.
I do go through life as if I have free will, realizing all the while that free will is an illusion.
But perhaps, as an experiment, I will practice living with the thought that it’s all fate – after all I agree that it is – and see how it feels to live without the illusion of free will.
Trouble is the illusion of free will is so good it’s going to be pretty hard to shake it.
Really? None of my children ever believed in “free will”.
Really?
You must have indoctrinated them from birth, Franko.
Does God exist? (simple question)
Obviously God exist.
(Remember, I’m answering the simple question here)
I wouldn’t quarrel with this.
At first blush, God exists (simple answer).
But, when you investigate further, you find that there is no evidence that God exists and that God has no explanatory power (complex answer)
I say that my CAR is less conscious then ME, because 1) I control my CAR, and 2) I make a CAR far easier than a CAR makes ME.
Franko, YOU cannot make a CAR.
To do so you must be able to mine iron ore, you must be able to manufacture steel, you must be able to manufacture the machines which manufacture steel, you must be able to build the factories that manufacture these machines, you must be able to design such machines and factories, you must be able to design and build electricity generators so that you can use electricity to power your various manufacturing industries, you must have been able to create the theoretical framework which is the basis of all the above etc etc etc etc etc etc
Art, Science and Culture are at an evolutionary level above the individual human being.
Nobody knows how to make a car.
Lots of people know how to do little bits and pieces here and there but nobody has any idea how to do the lot.
Maybe the watch just randomly formed according to the Laws of Physics? Why posit that the laws of physics first made “Intelligent Aliens”, who then in turn made watches? Maybe TLOP just cut to the chase, and is producing watches directly now?
I cannot believe you are serious, Franko.
What is the probability that a watch could form randomly[/], do you think?
I agree with your point, but you are still begging the question of Materialism. Why does a watch imply a consciousness intelligent enough to produce a watch, while universe does NOT imply the existence of a life form intelligent enough to produce a Universe?
Simplicity produces complexity.
But YOU imply the existence of GOD (or TLOP).
Do you mean GOD = TLOP?
Or do you mean that GOD is responsible for TLOP?
If the second alternative, then who is responsible for GOD?
[BillyJoe: the presence of artifacts implies a higher form of consciousness]
I agree completely – O’artifact of Almighty TLOP.
Franko, what I meant by this statement was that the artifact, itself, is a higher form of consciousness because the seive of natural selection had to do more work to produce an artifact of homo sapiens than is required to produce homo sapiens.
Yes, but that is My point. Our conversation from yesterday (and now this one) are [p]art of your past already. The information from these exchanges is affecting the output of your MPB algorithm, as we speak.
It is not YOUR point, it is OUR point.
I was indicating that this was a point of agreement between us.
This is why Dawkins and others like him are Nitwits. Contingency is an absurd and logically inconsistent notion. Reality does NOT operate like that.
If I erased your memory of the last 10 years and sent you back in Time 10 years in the past. You would relive those 10 years exactly the same as you did the first time. The only way that ANYTHING would ever be different is if somehow you retained some memory of your previous run through the cycle.
Yes, I do not understand how "contingency" could change the outcome second time around, merely that it would make it impossibe to predict the original outcome.
Of course I could [produce a TOASTER.]
No you couldn’t
… or I could put a piece of bread on the end of a stick, and hold it over a fire.
Franko, you forgot your smiley because this is surely a joke.
Perhaps, but the Toaster in my Kitchen is evidence that some humans DO have that knowledge. Since those humans are intrinsically no different then I am, it is easily within the realm of possibility that I could learn to make Toasters.
No, Franko, it is impossible for anyone to make a toaster.
It took 3 – 4 million years of evolution to produce a toaster.
Besides … how do you know that I don’t work in a Toaster factory?
Why is that a problem [as to who made TLOP] ? Remember Mandelbrot? How about Godel? Godel explained all of this (mathematically), and then Mandelbrot demonstrated it.
I must have missed this lesson.
I don’t remember how Godel explained and Mandlebrot demonstrated the origin of TLOP
Me: Who made you?
You: my parents.
Me: Who made your parents?
You: my grandparents.
Me: Who made your grandparents?
You: My great grandparents …
So why is it a problem? That’s not a problem, that is cause and event.
The problem is that there are an infinite number of steps.
Where’s the explanation in an infinite series?
Pretending that everything appeared like magic in the Big Bang is no more of an explanation, it is far far less of one.
The Big Bang does not explain TLOP unless these particular LOPs are the only possible ones.
If not, then there is a problem – a mystery in fact.
[TLOP] is only a mystery, if you want to pretend that it is a mystery. TLOP is nothing more than the rules of the game. If you were God, and we were all inside your mind, your communications to me and everyone else would be perceived by us as something akin to the Laws of Physics. Think about it, and perhaps you will see what I mean.
Don’t you feel a need to explain GOD?
…if an Alien ship ever crashed on Earth, you are claiming you would be more interested in their Spaceship then in the Aliens themselves?
You would discover a whole lot more about the aliens by examining their spacecraft (assuming it survived the crash) that you would ever gain from examining the aliens (even if they survived the crash)
Personally, that sounds to me like claiming it is better to possess One Physical Wheel, then it is to possess the knowledge of “the Wheel”.
The aliens in the spacecraft are unlikely, in the extreme, to know how their spacecraft operates or how it was manufactured or to have knowledge of the underlying theories necessary in order to design the spacecraft.
The spacecraft has the potential to inform us about all of these things which, in turn, has the potential to inform us about the whole alien race (as opposed to these particular aliens).
You have no idea of how gravity works exactly (remem the missing Higg’s boson?), so I don’t see how you can even make this claim.
No. I am obviously no physicist. Just a struggling layman. But physicist do have some ideas on this question. I do not remember the argument that establishes that Gravity is negative energy but it is generally agreed amongst physicists that this is the case.
I am not sure of the relevance of the Higgs Boson. This is the hypothetical particle that gives elementary particles their mass isn’t it? The Higgs Boson hasn’t yet been discovered but this is not to deny that mass exists?
If Energy = Zero, then how do you explain all of the Energy apparently lying around?
Its splits into positive energy (Mass) and negative energy (Gravity)
Stand in a burning fire and try telling yourself that Energy = 0.
I would be experiencing positive energy
If this is True, then what caused the Big Bang?
This is the mystery at the beginning of the universe.
Nobody knows the answer although people like Hawking think they have some clues.
Do you see this post?
See the screen that frames it?
See the cables leading off to a nearby box?
That box is a machine. That machine was made by a consciousness.
Well, I meant ultimately….
What evidence indicates that ultimately it is (Primordial) Mind that produces machines.
What evidence indicates that Mind came before machines.
There is abundant evidence that Minds make machines, but there is no evidence that Machines (or “Matter”) makes minds. The only example you could site is Living creatures, but unless you have definitive proof that TLOP is NON-conscious (which you do not), then you have no evidence – not one shred – of Machines making Minds. That it is even possible is simply an assumption on your part.
But it is at least possible (some would say likely) that the mind is a machine.
Exactly right. As it turns out Mandelbrot is an excellent analogy for reality. Simple ideas, plus a lot of recursion – and Waa-laa – elaborate and seemingly complex universe with You and I talking about Mandelbrot!
Simplicity (TLOP) -> Complexity (YOU) -> Increased Complexity (ART, SCIENCE, CULTURE)
Have you heard of the Halting problem? The halting-problem is actually a real type of problem -- a class of problems – that actually exist in reality. The LD call them H-Mobius problems. These are a special class of logic problems that can reiterate indefinitely inside your consciousness. They can trap you, and eventually drive you insane – annihilating You in the process.
Solipsism, Fate, God, and Time are all examples of H-Mobius problems. But not all of these problems are equal. Time is actually many different H-Mobius problems.
Are you saying that FATE can trap you and drive you insane?
Are you saying that GOD can trap you and drive you insane?
I'd better avoid tham both then
… but getting back to the point, the Elephant tried to solve Time first, and there was no way he was going to be able to do that. He became convinced that Zero and Infinity were the same value. An entirely logical conclusion from his POV, but based on a faulty initial premise none-the-less. Essentially he became trapped in a loop of his own creation. I believe this manifested as his “Juggler” persona (note the obvious, around and around connotation of that nick).
Franko, I was joking.
Turtles all the way down means there is no beginning.
Turtles all the way up means there is no end.
This is obviously no solution to the problem so I jokingly suggested that perhaps the up turtles loop back onto the down turtles forming a continuous loop without beginning or end.
I was not suggesting this as an actual solution.
What you are saying here is entirely possible. But I have no way of knowing myself. The Logical Goddess is the most powerful entity that I perceive, I am unable to perceive any entity Superior to Her; ergo there is no evidence for me to speculate on a entity which is Superior to Her.
The Logical Goddess?
I have heard you mention the Goddess on many occasions but still do not know what it means.
This is where the Atheists lose me.
X + Y – Z = N
1) TRUE
2) FALSE
3) UNKNOWN
Absent ANY evidence, my answer is #3 – UNKNOWN. You seem to be claiming that somehow You know that the answer is #2 – FALSE.
I think I have said this at least three times already.
I do NOT claim that I know the answer is FALSE (except in jest or engaging in hyperbole such as when I say “You will NEVER win lotto”)
My position is that……….
I take X into account only if there is evidence that X is true.
There is no evidence that X is TRUE.
Therefore, until such evidence is forthcoming, I do not take X into account.
In my mind, that is utterly ridiculous. Would you really live your life as if this equation is FALSE? Why not act as if the equation is UNKWOWN?
Why not act as if Santa Claus and Faeries are UNKNOWN?
Isn't it better to say.....
There is no evidence that Santa and faeries are TRUE, therefore I do not take them into account.
Will you be alive next year at this time?
1) True
2) False
3) Unknown
Billyjoe, are you seriously telling me that you are living your life as if #2 (False) is the correct answer to this question? Running up your credit cards? Eating and drinking whatever you want? Smoking, womanizing, gambling all your money away?
]“Will I be alive this time next year?”
There is lots of evidence to suggest that I will be alive this time next year so I do take this into account.
“Will I be dead this time next year?”
There is no evidence to suggest that I will be dead this time next year so I don’t take this into account.
Good Karma for you, My Friend [for admitting you made a mistake]
Yeah well, a bit embarassing as well.
BillyJoe’s reply in bold type
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TLOP controls YOU controls CAR
You can’t say that you are superior to the left side, AND superior to the right side at the same time. At least, you cannot do it and maintain any sort of sense of Logical Consistency.
Complexity increases form left to right.
Flying saucers aren’t real Billyjoe. Some people just imagine they see them. Same with “free will”.
Yeah but what about the ILLUSION of free will?
Not really [it doesn’t seem like “free will”], but then again I wouldn’t call a “square” a “4-sided triangle” either.
Well I’ll have to take your word for it.
When you wrote this post you did not feel as if you were using “free will” you felt AS IF you were following your FATE. In fact, in your opinion, you ARE following your FATE.
But I still find it hard to believe that you did not once feel as if you had “free will”. Before you arrived, through your logic, at the conclusion that you are just following your fate.
My “decisions” were preordained by events in my past. All of my “decisions” are merely the inevitable result and logical consequence of my previous “decisions”.
Well that is your logical conclusion.
But what was your gut feeling before you employed your logic? Before you were capable of logic?
You aren’t making “decisions” either. The only difference is, I realize this and perceive accordingly. You on the other hand are programmed to pretend as if something FALSE is actually TRUE. It is a serious flaw in your algorithm. Fortunately, in your case, the error can be corrected.
I said “making” decisions.
That means I do not really think I am making decisions. As I said, it’s all physics and chemistry.
I do go through life as if I have free will, realizing all the while that free will is an illusion.
But perhaps, as an experiment, I will practice living with the thought that it’s all fate – after all I agree that it is – and see how it feels to live without the illusion of free will.
Trouble is the illusion of free will is so good it’s going to be pretty hard to shake it.
Really? None of my children ever believed in “free will”.
Really?
You must have indoctrinated them from birth, Franko.
Does God exist? (simple question)
Obviously God exist.
(Remember, I’m answering the simple question here)
I wouldn’t quarrel with this.
At first blush, God exists (simple answer).
But, when you investigate further, you find that there is no evidence that God exists and that God has no explanatory power (complex answer)
I say that my CAR is less conscious then ME, because 1) I control my CAR, and 2) I make a CAR far easier than a CAR makes ME.
Franko, YOU cannot make a CAR.
To do so you must be able to mine iron ore, you must be able to manufacture steel, you must be able to manufacture the machines which manufacture steel, you must be able to build the factories that manufacture these machines, you must be able to design such machines and factories, you must be able to design and build electricity generators so that you can use electricity to power your various manufacturing industries, you must have been able to create the theoretical framework which is the basis of all the above etc etc etc etc etc etc
Art, Science and Culture are at an evolutionary level above the individual human being.
Nobody knows how to make a car.
Lots of people know how to do little bits and pieces here and there but nobody has any idea how to do the lot.
Maybe the watch just randomly formed according to the Laws of Physics? Why posit that the laws of physics first made “Intelligent Aliens”, who then in turn made watches? Maybe TLOP just cut to the chase, and is producing watches directly now?
I cannot believe you are serious, Franko.
What is the probability that a watch could form randomly[/], do you think?
I agree with your point, but you are still begging the question of Materialism. Why does a watch imply a consciousness intelligent enough to produce a watch, while universe does NOT imply the existence of a life form intelligent enough to produce a Universe?
Simplicity produces complexity.
But YOU imply the existence of GOD (or TLOP).
Do you mean GOD = TLOP?
Or do you mean that GOD is responsible for TLOP?
If the second alternative, then who is responsible for GOD?
[BillyJoe: the presence of artifacts implies a higher form of consciousness]
I agree completely – O’artifact of Almighty TLOP.
Franko, what I meant by this statement was that the artifact, itself, is a higher form of consciousness because the seive of natural selection had to do more work to produce an artifact of homo sapiens than is required to produce homo sapiens.
Yes, but that is My point. Our conversation from yesterday (and now this one) are [p]art of your past already. The information from these exchanges is affecting the output of your MPB algorithm, as we speak.
It is not YOUR point, it is OUR point.
I was indicating that this was a point of agreement between us.
This is why Dawkins and others like him are Nitwits. Contingency is an absurd and logically inconsistent notion. Reality does NOT operate like that.
If I erased your memory of the last 10 years and sent you back in Time 10 years in the past. You would relive those 10 years exactly the same as you did the first time. The only way that ANYTHING would ever be different is if somehow you retained some memory of your previous run through the cycle.
Yes, I do not understand how "contingency" could change the outcome second time around, merely that it would make it impossibe to predict the original outcome.
Of course I could [produce a TOASTER.]
No you couldn’t
… or I could put a piece of bread on the end of a stick, and hold it over a fire.
Franko, you forgot your smiley because this is surely a joke.
Perhaps, but the Toaster in my Kitchen is evidence that some humans DO have that knowledge. Since those humans are intrinsically no different then I am, it is easily within the realm of possibility that I could learn to make Toasters.
No, Franko, it is impossible for anyone to make a toaster.
It took 3 – 4 million years of evolution to produce a toaster.
Besides … how do you know that I don’t work in a Toaster factory?
Why is that a problem [as to who made TLOP] ? Remember Mandelbrot? How about Godel? Godel explained all of this (mathematically), and then Mandelbrot demonstrated it.
I must have missed this lesson.
I don’t remember how Godel explained and Mandlebrot demonstrated the origin of TLOP
Me: Who made you?
You: my parents.
Me: Who made your parents?
You: my grandparents.
Me: Who made your grandparents?
You: My great grandparents …
So why is it a problem? That’s not a problem, that is cause and event.
The problem is that there are an infinite number of steps.
Where’s the explanation in an infinite series?
Pretending that everything appeared like magic in the Big Bang is no more of an explanation, it is far far less of one.
The Big Bang does not explain TLOP unless these particular LOPs are the only possible ones.
If not, then there is a problem – a mystery in fact.
[TLOP] is only a mystery, if you want to pretend that it is a mystery. TLOP is nothing more than the rules of the game. If you were God, and we were all inside your mind, your communications to me and everyone else would be perceived by us as something akin to the Laws of Physics. Think about it, and perhaps you will see what I mean.
Don’t you feel a need to explain GOD?
…if an Alien ship ever crashed on Earth, you are claiming you would be more interested in their Spaceship then in the Aliens themselves?
You would discover a whole lot more about the aliens by examining their spacecraft (assuming it survived the crash) that you would ever gain from examining the aliens (even if they survived the crash)
Personally, that sounds to me like claiming it is better to possess One Physical Wheel, then it is to possess the knowledge of “the Wheel”.
The aliens in the spacecraft are unlikely, in the extreme, to know how their spacecraft operates or how it was manufactured or to have knowledge of the underlying theories necessary in order to design the spacecraft.
The spacecraft has the potential to inform us about all of these things which, in turn, has the potential to inform us about the whole alien race (as opposed to these particular aliens).
You have no idea of how gravity works exactly (remem the missing Higg’s boson?), so I don’t see how you can even make this claim.
No. I am obviously no physicist. Just a struggling layman. But physicist do have some ideas on this question. I do not remember the argument that establishes that Gravity is negative energy but it is generally agreed amongst physicists that this is the case.
I am not sure of the relevance of the Higgs Boson. This is the hypothetical particle that gives elementary particles their mass isn’t it? The Higgs Boson hasn’t yet been discovered but this is not to deny that mass exists?
If Energy = Zero, then how do you explain all of the Energy apparently lying around?
Its splits into positive energy (Mass) and negative energy (Gravity)
Stand in a burning fire and try telling yourself that Energy = 0.
I would be experiencing positive energy
If this is True, then what caused the Big Bang?
This is the mystery at the beginning of the universe.
Nobody knows the answer although people like Hawking think they have some clues.
Do you see this post?
See the screen that frames it?
See the cables leading off to a nearby box?
That box is a machine. That machine was made by a consciousness.
Well, I meant ultimately….
What evidence indicates that ultimately it is (Primordial) Mind that produces machines.
What evidence indicates that Mind came before machines.
There is abundant evidence that Minds make machines, but there is no evidence that Machines (or “Matter”) makes minds. The only example you could site is Living creatures, but unless you have definitive proof that TLOP is NON-conscious (which you do not), then you have no evidence – not one shred – of Machines making Minds. That it is even possible is simply an assumption on your part.
But it is at least possible (some would say likely) that the mind is a machine.
Exactly right. As it turns out Mandelbrot is an excellent analogy for reality. Simple ideas, plus a lot of recursion – and Waa-laa – elaborate and seemingly complex universe with You and I talking about Mandelbrot!
Simplicity (TLOP) -> Complexity (YOU) -> Increased Complexity (ART, SCIENCE, CULTURE)
Have you heard of the Halting problem? The halting-problem is actually a real type of problem -- a class of problems – that actually exist in reality. The LD call them H-Mobius problems. These are a special class of logic problems that can reiterate indefinitely inside your consciousness. They can trap you, and eventually drive you insane – annihilating You in the process.
Solipsism, Fate, God, and Time are all examples of H-Mobius problems. But not all of these problems are equal. Time is actually many different H-Mobius problems.
Are you saying that FATE can trap you and drive you insane?
Are you saying that GOD can trap you and drive you insane?
I'd better avoid tham both then
… but getting back to the point, the Elephant tried to solve Time first, and there was no way he was going to be able to do that. He became convinced that Zero and Infinity were the same value. An entirely logical conclusion from his POV, but based on a faulty initial premise none-the-less. Essentially he became trapped in a loop of his own creation. I believe this manifested as his “Juggler” persona (note the obvious, around and around connotation of that nick).
Franko, I was joking.
Turtles all the way down means there is no beginning.
Turtles all the way up means there is no end.
This is obviously no solution to the problem so I jokingly suggested that perhaps the up turtles loop back onto the down turtles forming a continuous loop without beginning or end.
I was not suggesting this as an actual solution.
What you are saying here is entirely possible. But I have no way of knowing myself. The Logical Goddess is the most powerful entity that I perceive, I am unable to perceive any entity Superior to Her; ergo there is no evidence for me to speculate on a entity which is Superior to Her.
The Logical Goddess?
I have heard you mention the Goddess on many occasions but still do not know what it means.
This is where the Atheists lose me.
X + Y – Z = N
1) TRUE
2) FALSE
3) UNKNOWN
Absent ANY evidence, my answer is #3 – UNKNOWN. You seem to be claiming that somehow You know that the answer is #2 – FALSE.
I think I have said this at least three times already.
I do NOT claim that I know the answer is FALSE (except in jest or engaging in hyperbole such as when I say “You will NEVER win lotto”)
My position is that……….
I take X into account only if there is evidence that X is true.
There is no evidence that X is TRUE.
Therefore, until such evidence is forthcoming, I do not take X into account.
In my mind, that is utterly ridiculous. Would you really live your life as if this equation is FALSE? Why not act as if the equation is UNKWOWN?
Why not act as if Santa Claus and Faeries are UNKNOWN?
Isn't it better to say.....
There is no evidence that Santa and faeries are TRUE, therefore I do not take them into account.
Will you be alive next year at this time?
1) True
2) False
3) Unknown
Billyjoe, are you seriously telling me that you are living your life as if #2 (False) is the correct answer to this question? Running up your credit cards? Eating and drinking whatever you want? Smoking, womanizing, gambling all your money away?
]“Will I be alive this time next year?”
There is lots of evidence to suggest that I will be alive this time next year so I do take this into account.
“Will I be dead this time next year?”
There is no evidence to suggest that I will be dead this time next year so I don’t take this into account.
Good Karma for you, My Friend [for admitting you made a mistake]
Yeah well, a bit embarassing as well.
Titanpoint
Unregistered
T
If there any moderators watching, can you please lock this thread?
TP
TP
Titanpout cried:
Translation: We must protect the Dogma of the Cult of A-Theism AT ALL COST!!! These Heretical writting must CEASE THIS INSTANT!!!
Run along Troll-Boy, the Abyss is calling you ... www.infidels.org
Translation: We must protect the Dogma of the Cult of A-Theism AT ALL COST!!! These Heretical writting must CEASE THIS INSTANT!!!
Run along Troll-Boy, the Abyss is calling you ... www.infidels.org
Titanpoint
Unregistered
T
hammegk said:
What on earth brought this on?
Billyjoe:
Well if that is True, then explain why we understand “more” complex Cars so much better than “less” complex TLOP?
Why can you make a Car easier than you can make TLOP?
The illusion of free will is just as real as the illusion of alien abductions.
So A-Theists who believe in “free will” are about as logical as people who believe they have been anal probed and implanted by extraterrestrials.
Exactly! Kind of like how YOU once believed that when you died you would go to Heaven and be with God.
I became a Fatalist some time between the Age of 18 and 20. Prior to that I guess I believed in “free will”, it has been so long now, that I am not certain what I really believed before that, or if I gave the matter much thought at all?
But I guess it is analogous to being a Christian in ones youth, and becoming an Atheist later in life.
Let me give you some advice on this, if I may be so bold.
It is very difficult to believe in Fate, and remain a materialist, and maintain your sanity at the same time. The belief in Fate by necessity implies a “higher power” controlling Destiny. But since Fate is the reality – since it is True – then like all True things, it conveys a great benefit to the believer. It would be very difficult for me to explain this benefit, it is something that one must experience for themselves to truly comprehend.
Think about it. People were once very upset by the notion of evolution, or a round Earth, but certainly no one who believes in these things today would say that we are worse off for knowing the Truth. To suggest that the Truth is ever non-beneficial is absurd.
Actually Billyjoe, I have never taught any children (especially my own) WHAT to think, I only teach them HOW to think. When you teach (tell) someone WHAT to think you have only served to rob them, and yourself, of Individuality.
Billyjoe, someone (a human) sure as hell can make them. I certainly see plenty of them around. Who made the first car?
Admittedly there are a lot of layers to the process of building a Car, but regardless of the number of layers, there are even more involved in building you.
Why is our (human) technology fundamentally different then TLOP’s? Today we make better cars and toasters then we did 50 years ago. Similarly TLOP makes better Animals and planets then it did 50 million years ago.
Think back 300 million years, the best TLOP could do was a dinosaur, or a lemur, or a sloth. Now – Today – TLOP can make you (a Human Being). Just like a Car was a long evolutionary line for us to produce a modern Car today, You are the result of a long evolutionary line of technological progress. Next year, or next generation, or next millennium, TLOP will come out with an even better model.
Billyjoe, I can’t believe that YOU are serious. I understand how a WATCH is made FAR better then I understand how YOU are made. Why is it so hard for you to see that it would be easier for TLOP to make a watch, then it would for TLOP to make you? Obviously a watch is less complex then your are. Why do you believe that more complex you can be randomly formed, but not less complex watch cannot be randomly formed?
Actually the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise.
Except, possibly where life is involved, but Life can’t save you here, because you claim TLOP is not Alive.
Using the Initial state and the Laws of Physics as the base, if YOU were God, Your mind (your consciousness) would be the initial state, and your words and actions would be TLOP.
It is kind of like this post. I don’t see you physically manifest when I perceive it. I only perceive your words (your TLOP your energy/information transmitted). So I perceive TLOB (The Laws of BillyJoe), but I don’t perceive the Initial State (Billyjoe yourself).
TLOP ------- > YOU -------- > TOASTER
Now you can’t have it both ways Billyjoe. Not if you want to be logically consistent. Either TLOP, or the TOASTER must be 1) More complex, 2) More evolved, 3) More conscious. Personally, my vote is for TLOP, but you seem to be saying it’s the toaster.
Let me ask you this. I can make a spear by taking a straight stick and sharpen the end with a rock. Does this mean that the pointy stick is more complex, more evolved, and more conscious then I am?
The thing I think you are forgetting in your equation is that in all likelihood TLOP hasn’t “died” in over 12.7 Billion years. In that much time you learn a thing or to. You can get to be rather complex, especially when you are immersed in an environment where you are receiving a constant and steady stream of new information.
The point I was trying to make, my fine Friend is that in the same way our technology has increased over Time, so has TLOP’s. We are accumulating knowledge, our technology increases. TLOP is accumulating knowledge, Her technology increases.
Once we couldn’t make Toasters. Now we can.
Once She couldn’t make Humans. Now She can.
That’s right, but by the same token, it took at least 12.7 Billion years of evolution to produce “Billyjoe”. In the same way a Toaster is less complex than the thing that made it (You/Humans), You are less complex than the thing that made YOU (TLOP).
Yeah, In my opinion, Godel should have guys like Einstein and Newton bringing him coffee and his slippers in the afterlife.
Godel is famous for his incompleteness theorem. Later he used a variation of this argument as the basis for his ontological proof of God.
What Godel says is that if you succeed in Unifying Physics – you boil everything down to an equation, or a system of equations, that there is no way to justify or prove that this equation is actually valid without making an appeal to an agent outside or beyond that system.
In other words, Godel is basically providing a Math proof for something “outside” the universe. The LD call this realm the Omniverse.
When you combine Godel with Thomas Bayes, essentially you arrive at the conclusion, that previous systems in the past (the Abyss and back) would be simpler, and operate at lower energies. Systems in the future (i.e. the Metaverse and up) would be more complex systems, and run at higher Energies.
Turtles all the way Up, and all the way down …
Well I never claimed to have ALL the answers, just more of the answer.
What is the use in claiming that everything began with the Big Bang, and that nothing comes before when this is obviously NOT THE CASE? I mean, seriously Billyjoe, something had to be happening before the Big Bang, otherwise … why did the Big Bang even occur?
That is why I mention Godel and Mandelbrot. This isn’t just elaborate speculation, this is mathematics we are talking about here. This is empirically verifiable results. It should be obvious to you that reality is VERY recursive in nature. How many times have you driven the exact same route home from work at the same time of day? How many times have you stood out front of your door, and inserted your house key into the same lock? How many summers have you seen follow winters?
But I do explain God. She is the Logical Goddess. She is the source of Logic, the frame of reference for you and me and everyone. Aside from Your own mind, Her’s the one mind that you understand best of all. In fact, you understand Her mind so well, that you are hardly able to distinguish it from yourself any more. You have come to believe that it is simply an extension of yourself. Perceiving Fate is the first step in separating yourself, and re-establishing your unique Individuality.
That theory runs in to serious problems though when anti-matter enters into the equation.
Mark my words Billyjoe. Hawking is so far off in left field on this, if we were living in the 15th century he would be calling for Galileo to be burned at the stake.
Well, that’s what I mean. There is NO evidence of machines making minds – unless you beg the question of materialism – in which case machines make minds. But that one single hypothetical example aside, all of the other observed evidence says that the opposite is True, and that it is always Minds which make Machines.
In other words, if TLOP is conscious, then there would be NO examples (even hypothetical) of Machines making Minds. Not One. But so long as you make TLOP non-conscious this creates a contradiction, there are no tangible examples of what you are claiming.
There is a reason that the LD say they are “True-Materialists”, while the Atheists are referred to as “Pseudo-materialists”. That fact is that your mind is a machine – more of an algorithm actually then a “machine”. But your consciousness is not made out of what the pseudo-materialist would call “matter” – not in reality. Your consciousness is made of “True-matter” it is an entirely different stuff, nothing like what the pseudo-materialist imagine “matter” to be. This is exactly why LD has more explanatory power then Atheism/Pseudo-materialism.
It is analogous to two people, one believing in Atoms, and the other believing everything is made of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.
Your notion regarding the lack of an afterlife is hindering your imagining this. Assume for a moment that you are immortal. You have children. Initially they are inferior, but over time they grow and learn. Perhaps one day they are even smarter and wiser than you.
But in 1000 years, do you suppose that you great, great, great, … great grandchildren will have ANY chance of growing up to be smarter or wiser than you? After 1000 years, in all likelihood your lead would be too great for them to EVER catch up.
The problem is … eventually you will be forced to face them. The fact that you are here in this Universe is the ONLY thing preventing you from fully considering them now. In my assessment it is better to deal with these issues on your own terms, at the time of your choosing, then to wait for them to come for you when you are not mentally prepared.
… Imagine that you are playing Dungeons and Dragons, and the coolest, prettiest, smartest, most gorgeous woman you have ever laid eyes on is the Dungeonmistress.
That’s the Logical Goddess.
Well Santa is easy … My parents eventually confessed they were behind that scam. But I didn’t hold it against them. They were always pulling practical jokes on us kids when we were little. They still do!
As for the Faeries … I’d say Unknown. I’m not even sure what you mean by “Faeries”. For example, Gay men are sometimes called “Faeries”. And I am pretty sure that Gay men exist in reality.
Well lets use Faeries instead of Santa, but using the general definition of Faeries, I would say that my Agnosticism on Faeries doesn’t really come up much, and when it does, I don’t see how me claiming there are NO faeries when I really have No idea if there are faeries is a superior or more beneficial way to act?
What evidence? Are you claiming it is impossible that you will be run over by a bus later today (Goddess forbid!)?
I don’t see the difference. If there is no evidence for God, Atheist believe NO GOD.
Similarly if there is NO evidence you will be alive next week, NO ALIVE NEXT WEEK.
Really? Do you think so? You shouldn’t be embarrassed.
That is what being a Fatalist is all about BJ. To a Fatalist it is an Honor, of sorts, to concede a mistake. The only dishonor is in not conceding to it, and instead making that same mistake over and over and over again. To a Fatalist, mistakes in your past are unavoidable (a source of humor perhaps, but never regret), it is repeating those mistakes in the present when you should know better that is the true sin (source of embarrassment).
Well if that is True, then explain why we understand “more” complex Cars so much better than “less” complex TLOP?
Why can you make a Car easier than you can make TLOP?
The illusion of free will is just as real as the illusion of alien abductions.
So A-Theists who believe in “free will” are about as logical as people who believe they have been anal probed and implanted by extraterrestrials.
Exactly! Kind of like how YOU once believed that when you died you would go to Heaven and be with God.
I became a Fatalist some time between the Age of 18 and 20. Prior to that I guess I believed in “free will”, it has been so long now, that I am not certain what I really believed before that, or if I gave the matter much thought at all?
But I guess it is analogous to being a Christian in ones youth, and becoming an Atheist later in life.
Let me give you some advice on this, if I may be so bold.
It is very difficult to believe in Fate, and remain a materialist, and maintain your sanity at the same time. The belief in Fate by necessity implies a “higher power” controlling Destiny. But since Fate is the reality – since it is True – then like all True things, it conveys a great benefit to the believer. It would be very difficult for me to explain this benefit, it is something that one must experience for themselves to truly comprehend.
Think about it. People were once very upset by the notion of evolution, or a round Earth, but certainly no one who believes in these things today would say that we are worse off for knowing the Truth. To suggest that the Truth is ever non-beneficial is absurd.
Actually Billyjoe, I have never taught any children (especially my own) WHAT to think, I only teach them HOW to think. When you teach (tell) someone WHAT to think you have only served to rob them, and yourself, of Individuality.
Billyjoe, someone (a human) sure as hell can make them. I certainly see plenty of them around. Who made the first car?
Admittedly there are a lot of layers to the process of building a Car, but regardless of the number of layers, there are even more involved in building you.
Why is our (human) technology fundamentally different then TLOP’s? Today we make better cars and toasters then we did 50 years ago. Similarly TLOP makes better Animals and planets then it did 50 million years ago.
Think back 300 million years, the best TLOP could do was a dinosaur, or a lemur, or a sloth. Now – Today – TLOP can make you (a Human Being). Just like a Car was a long evolutionary line for us to produce a modern Car today, You are the result of a long evolutionary line of technological progress. Next year, or next generation, or next millennium, TLOP will come out with an even better model.
Billyjoe, I can’t believe that YOU are serious. I understand how a WATCH is made FAR better then I understand how YOU are made. Why is it so hard for you to see that it would be easier for TLOP to make a watch, then it would for TLOP to make you? Obviously a watch is less complex then your are. Why do you believe that more complex you can be randomly formed, but not less complex watch cannot be randomly formed?
Actually the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise.
Except, possibly where life is involved, but Life can’t save you here, because you claim TLOP is not Alive.
Using the Initial state and the Laws of Physics as the base, if YOU were God, Your mind (your consciousness) would be the initial state, and your words and actions would be TLOP.
It is kind of like this post. I don’t see you physically manifest when I perceive it. I only perceive your words (your TLOP your energy/information transmitted). So I perceive TLOB (The Laws of BillyJoe), but I don’t perceive the Initial State (Billyjoe yourself).
TLOP ------- > YOU -------- > TOASTER
Now you can’t have it both ways Billyjoe. Not if you want to be logically consistent. Either TLOP, or the TOASTER must be 1) More complex, 2) More evolved, 3) More conscious. Personally, my vote is for TLOP, but you seem to be saying it’s the toaster.
Let me ask you this. I can make a spear by taking a straight stick and sharpen the end with a rock. Does this mean that the pointy stick is more complex, more evolved, and more conscious then I am?
The thing I think you are forgetting in your equation is that in all likelihood TLOP hasn’t “died” in over 12.7 Billion years. In that much time you learn a thing or to. You can get to be rather complex, especially when you are immersed in an environment where you are receiving a constant and steady stream of new information.
The point I was trying to make, my fine Friend is that in the same way our technology has increased over Time, so has TLOP’s. We are accumulating knowledge, our technology increases. TLOP is accumulating knowledge, Her technology increases.
Once we couldn’t make Toasters. Now we can.
Once She couldn’t make Humans. Now She can.
That’s right, but by the same token, it took at least 12.7 Billion years of evolution to produce “Billyjoe”. In the same way a Toaster is less complex than the thing that made it (You/Humans), You are less complex than the thing that made YOU (TLOP).
Yeah, In my opinion, Godel should have guys like Einstein and Newton bringing him coffee and his slippers in the afterlife.
Godel is famous for his incompleteness theorem. Later he used a variation of this argument as the basis for his ontological proof of God.
What Godel says is that if you succeed in Unifying Physics – you boil everything down to an equation, or a system of equations, that there is no way to justify or prove that this equation is actually valid without making an appeal to an agent outside or beyond that system.
In other words, Godel is basically providing a Math proof for something “outside” the universe. The LD call this realm the Omniverse.
When you combine Godel with Thomas Bayes, essentially you arrive at the conclusion, that previous systems in the past (the Abyss and back) would be simpler, and operate at lower energies. Systems in the future (i.e. the Metaverse and up) would be more complex systems, and run at higher Energies.
Turtles all the way Up, and all the way down …
Well I never claimed to have ALL the answers, just more of the answer.
What is the use in claiming that everything began with the Big Bang, and that nothing comes before when this is obviously NOT THE CASE? I mean, seriously Billyjoe, something had to be happening before the Big Bang, otherwise … why did the Big Bang even occur?
That is why I mention Godel and Mandelbrot. This isn’t just elaborate speculation, this is mathematics we are talking about here. This is empirically verifiable results. It should be obvious to you that reality is VERY recursive in nature. How many times have you driven the exact same route home from work at the same time of day? How many times have you stood out front of your door, and inserted your house key into the same lock? How many summers have you seen follow winters?
But I do explain God. She is the Logical Goddess. She is the source of Logic, the frame of reference for you and me and everyone. Aside from Your own mind, Her’s the one mind that you understand best of all. In fact, you understand Her mind so well, that you are hardly able to distinguish it from yourself any more. You have come to believe that it is simply an extension of yourself. Perceiving Fate is the first step in separating yourself, and re-establishing your unique Individuality.
That theory runs in to serious problems though when anti-matter enters into the equation.
Mark my words Billyjoe. Hawking is so far off in left field on this, if we were living in the 15th century he would be calling for Galileo to be burned at the stake.
Well, that’s what I mean. There is NO evidence of machines making minds – unless you beg the question of materialism – in which case machines make minds. But that one single hypothetical example aside, all of the other observed evidence says that the opposite is True, and that it is always Minds which make Machines.
In other words, if TLOP is conscious, then there would be NO examples (even hypothetical) of Machines making Minds. Not One. But so long as you make TLOP non-conscious this creates a contradiction, there are no tangible examples of what you are claiming.
There is a reason that the LD say they are “True-Materialists”, while the Atheists are referred to as “Pseudo-materialists”. That fact is that your mind is a machine – more of an algorithm actually then a “machine”. But your consciousness is not made out of what the pseudo-materialist would call “matter” – not in reality. Your consciousness is made of “True-matter” it is an entirely different stuff, nothing like what the pseudo-materialist imagine “matter” to be. This is exactly why LD has more explanatory power then Atheism/Pseudo-materialism.
It is analogous to two people, one believing in Atoms, and the other believing everything is made of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.
Your notion regarding the lack of an afterlife is hindering your imagining this. Assume for a moment that you are immortal. You have children. Initially they are inferior, but over time they grow and learn. Perhaps one day they are even smarter and wiser than you.
But in 1000 years, do you suppose that you great, great, great, … great grandchildren will have ANY chance of growing up to be smarter or wiser than you? After 1000 years, in all likelihood your lead would be too great for them to EVER catch up.
The problem is … eventually you will be forced to face them. The fact that you are here in this Universe is the ONLY thing preventing you from fully considering them now. In my assessment it is better to deal with these issues on your own terms, at the time of your choosing, then to wait for them to come for you when you are not mentally prepared.
… Imagine that you are playing Dungeons and Dragons, and the coolest, prettiest, smartest, most gorgeous woman you have ever laid eyes on is the Dungeonmistress.
That’s the Logical Goddess.
Well Santa is easy … My parents eventually confessed they were behind that scam. But I didn’t hold it against them. They were always pulling practical jokes on us kids when we were little. They still do!
As for the Faeries … I’d say Unknown. I’m not even sure what you mean by “Faeries”. For example, Gay men are sometimes called “Faeries”. And I am pretty sure that Gay men exist in reality.
Well lets use Faeries instead of Santa, but using the general definition of Faeries, I would say that my Agnosticism on Faeries doesn’t really come up much, and when it does, I don’t see how me claiming there are NO faeries when I really have No idea if there are faeries is a superior or more beneficial way to act?
What evidence? Are you claiming it is impossible that you will be run over by a bus later today (Goddess forbid!)?
I don’t see the difference. If there is no evidence for God, Atheist believe NO GOD.
Similarly if there is NO evidence you will be alive next week, NO ALIVE NEXT WEEK.
Really? Do you think so? You shouldn’t be embarrassed.
That is what being a Fatalist is all about BJ. To a Fatalist it is an Honor, of sorts, to concede a mistake. The only dishonor is in not conceding to it, and instead making that same mistake over and over and over again. To a Fatalist, mistakes in your past are unavoidable (a source of humor perhaps, but never regret), it is repeating those mistakes in the present when you should know better that is the true sin (source of embarrassment).
gentlehorse
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2001
- Messages
- 2,605
Franko and Billy Joe are having a civil discussion, TP. What do you find so offensive? Seriously. Two people are making an effort to share ideas. They're obviously putting some thought into their posts. They're neither flaming nor talking past one another, regardless of whether they come to any kind of an agreement. Each is exploring/sharing his ideas in light of the other's.
Why put a stop to this kind of exchange, whether you agree with either of their positions or not? Why even entertain the idea? Isn't this type of echange to be expected and even encouraged in the JREF's R&P section? My goodness.
Edited to thank Billy Joe and Franko for their contributions to this thread. I've enjoyed following your discussion very much.