GENIUS FORUMS

Nat: You're relying on the language and framework of the things you're attempting to disparage in order to disparage them. That is why most such attempts to undermine the importance of logic and reason fail before they even start - they are non-sequiturs.

Carl: Nice try at trying to undermine a simple truth with semantic gibberish.

It isn't "semantic gibberish," it's simple logic. And yours wasn't simple truth, it was incoherent gibberish. That's what non-sequitur means - "non-starter."

Regarding this issue we cannot appeal to anything, that is my point.

Your point is wrong, then. We can appeal to logic and reason to determine that in the absence of reliable evidence for a given assertion, we should lack belief in that assertion. Otherwise, we have to take Zeus, the bogeyman, and the Cheese Danish at the Center of The Earth just as seriously as we take this "afterlife" business. You don't want to do that, do you?

Nonsense. There are many things we don't know, and it's perfectly reasonable to admit it.

And I did, repeatedly, just to make sure I couldn't be accused of not admitting it. But in your haste to protect the idea that "the afterlife" can be taken seriously, you apparently missed it.

Yeah, we don't know - in the same sense we don't know that the Great Cheese Danish doesn't exist. But until there is any reliable evidence for either the Great Cheese Danish or the afterlife, it's silly to believe in them or even take the possibility seriously. Otherwise, to be consistent and intellectually honest, we have to take *all* possibilities for which there is no evidence equally seriously - including the possibility that monkeys might fly out of my butt.

An emotional -- and invalid for this argument -- reply, why, because fucking brain surgery has nothing to do with it. That's like saying that because I use science to bake a pie, I should be able to tell you how life began on this planet.

Wow, I've never seen you get like this. Death is pretty scary for you, eh? The mere threat of having "the afterlife" be exposed as unworthy of serious consideration seems to be giving you fits. It's a reaction I normally only see in religious people, and I guess I'm not as used to it as I was a few years ago. In any case, I'm sorry death is so frightening for you. It's scary for all of us, but you've got to show some character here, Carl. Intellectual honesty and rational thinking are important things. Don't throw them away just because death scares you. That would be very weak-minded.

Nat: But we don't know in the same sense that we don't know anything else. We don't know that there is not a giant buttermilk biscuit at the center of the universe, because we can't prove the negative. But until there is evidence for such a thing, logic and reason (as well as common sense) dictate that belief in it is entirely irrational.

Carl: You and others trot out this preposterous argument everytime the subject of the unknown comes up. Why, I have no idea; it makes no sense; it doesn't refute anything, though it sounds like it should.

It sounds like it should because it does, and part of you knows it. You're unable to consciously acknowledge this because fear is guiding your thinking right now. What I'm saying isn't allowed make sense because it undermines the possibility of an afterlife and therefore creates major cognitive dissonance. You need to recognize the mental block you're experiencing here. It's quite natural and is caused by the biological survival instinct. The cure (or at least the way to get some relief) is through undermining the sense of separation from Nature - in other words, the ego. Although the survival instinct is hard-wired and always influences our thinking to some extent, death loses a portion of its sting when you realize that individuality itself is conceptually constructed.

That's kind of what I've been saying on this thread all along. People have been positing all sorts of personal opinions about death and post death, and I've been saying it's fine to do so, but let's not pretend that we know.

No, we don't know. But some things can be taken seriously by rational individuals and some things can't. "The afterlife" can't, for the reasons I've given several times.

I like you, Carl. You're a nice guy. But I'm not going to engage you on this any further. If you don't allow yourself to get it this time around, I can't help you. Psychologically, you might be better off anyway. One's character has to be pretty strong to handle full-scale rationality. I don't want anybody to blow their minds on my account. It's up to you to decide whether or not you can handle consistent rational thinking. If you don't think you can, maybe you should continue taking "the afterlife" seriously. Unlike The Great Cheese Danish and other irrational possibilities, it might be a necessary delusion.

Unidian wrote:

It sounds like it should because it does, and part of you knows it. You're unable to consciously acknowledge this because fear is guiding your thinking right now. What I'm saying isn't allowed make sense because it undermines the possibility of an afterlife and therefore creates major cognitive dissonance. You need to recognize the mental block you're experiencing here. It's quite natural and is caused by the biological survival instinct. The cure (or at least the way to get some relief) is through undermining the sense of separation from Nature - in other words, the ego. Although the survival instinct is hard-wired and always influences our thinking to some extent, death loses a portion of its sting when you realize that individuality itself is conceptually constructed.

Sounds reasonable and, accordingly, I have a question for you.

What, exactly, about the biological survival drive of coupling necessarily disqualifies such relationships from the scrutiny of this reasoning?

Nobody (myself included) can say "for certain" that some sort of "spirit" does not exist or that it does not go various places or do various things after death.

If a person believes that cause and effect is an ultimate truth, then one can know for certain that no self exists after death.

Lets imagine a packet of tightly balanced spiritual energy is caused to flow out of the brain after death, then without any sensory tools it could have no awareness, without any memory it could form no thoughts, and without either of these it could not undertake any actions, it could have no self-directed affect on anything.

Being a tightly balanced unit of existence, it may have the capacity to hold its pattern together for long periods of time, like an atom does, and it may be highly resistant to the influence of most others patterns of causal force – just as rust stain on jeans is difficult to get rid off without the right chemical pattern being applied to the stain. It may be that the tightly bound energy structure, is most readily destroyed by the human brain. As the pattern came from a human brain, then another human brain may have a structure that can mesh with the energy structure. In order words, souls and ghosts could be real.

Now I am not suggesting any of this actually occurs, I’m only saying it really to get to the next point and for a bit of fun.

Any interaction the universe has with this imaginary energy structure MUST alter it, so even if their was a soul or 20 Grams of spiritual energy, all interaction this thing had with the universe would require that its nature be altered. Alteration of this pattern would be classed as Devolution - the complete segregation of the pattern into its parts, or as Evolution, it may grow by uniting with other patterns of energy that it can form a synergy with.

Lol, perhaps incarnation, multiple personalities and imagination not-fully-being-of-one’s-own-making are “real”. Maybe there are a plethora of dead souls (or even ideas in energy form) out there waiting unconsciously in the void for a pattern matching unity with some human brain. Most are slowly destroyed by non-human interference, but every now and then a soul or an idea merges with a similar one occurring in a live brain.

Could such an energy structure hold together?

Not in any way I can envisage.

On the plus side: An atom can hold together for billions of years. Matter is essentially energy. So something as small as a proton or photon will consist of bounded energy. If such units of existence can form then is there anything that would prevent a similar holding together structure on a larger scale like that of an energy wave.

Nonetheless I do not believe energy waves could hold together, their holding-together strength has been diluted by the significantly larger wave size of the parts of the energy soul, gravitational pulls would not be strong enough to hold the separate waves in place. Also they are likely to have a significantly greater opportunity for intrusion due to their size – a larger surface area means more intrusions. Lastly energy travels at or close to the speed of light, therefore such structures would more likely than not travel at immense speeds away from the point of creation (being internally balanced however, their external push/pull strength may be minimal).

Note that any form of structure that can be broken into parts must automatically be classed as a particle regardless of its size - a wave particle structure several kilometres long is still a particle.

If something cannot be broken into parts then it must be either fundamental, as in not formed by things, or of the nature of a God. If something cannot be broken into parts it cannot be conscious or interact with any thing, though it could interact, in a bounded sense, with another opposite fundamental form of existence to form a thing that has parts.

Leyla:

Sounds reasonable and, accordingly, I have a question for you.

What, exactly, about the biological survival drive of coupling necessarily disqualifies such relationships from the scrutiny of this reasoning?

Nothing. I don't feel a need to justify Nature. Note that I didn't advise Carl to try to get rid of his fear of death entirely, because it's not only impossible but undesirable. Humans are hard-wired to fear death in order to preserve the individual, just as they are hard-wired to form sexual relationships in order to preserve the species. Although ego is the primary factor in fear of death for most individuals, just as it is the major factor in most relationships, it is not the only factor. Because there is a strictly biological element involved, both fear of death and the drive to form relationships can exist in the absence of egotistical motivations.

Sure, neither happens very often, but that's another issue...

Sapius, monsters are cool; I always smile at them and invite them in for a game of chess.

Nord, nice… It’s good to know you play chess with monsters, so do I enjoy dining with them.

It seems you have indeed though over many issues as I thought, but you really don’t have much idea about me. Other than my posts in this thread, you will find I am totally opposite to what you assume, if you care to give it time. It stands to reason that you must have not read much of my other posts, and hence are jumping to conclusions about my personality. Give it some time and read any of my posts other than this thread, in this 'GF' forum; not science or wordly, not that you will find much there in any case.

You are creating an image of me from the one or two posts in this thread, whose topic is actually not even worth discussing, and doesn’t even belong here because such issues are not provable empirically, nor philosophically so to speak, unless the other has had certain “paranormal” experiences, empirically speaking. But I don’t believe that it will never be proven “empirically”, because most of us have not experienced things that are very much possible, and it takes a majority to win the vote. Generally, people reject the minority even if they are right; history proves that.

Evolution, definitely favors higher intelligence otherwise it would not have been here, so comparing different kinds of intelligence means little if you can see which intelligence achieves what? Of all the fantastic intelligences, it is only ours that can actually know about all those. Don’t tell me that you can prove a dolphin KNOWS what it can or cannot do, or that it KNOWS about other intelligences, and so does it go for all others.

I am not refuting that what the animals have does work as some kind of “thought” that must work by some “logic”, otherwise their interactions would be incoherent, so how is it that “logic” is “simply a tool”, when we cannot even separate it form absolutely anything that we can even think of, at its very core that is. It is the law of nature that only our kind of intelligence can discover, and that law is, ‘ “God” does not play dice’. This to me says that nature is “logical”, only that we are unaware up until we discover the reason through thoughtful experiences, about any “particular” empirical experience. It is impossible for existence to be illogical at its core, it is only our dimensional limitations that don’t easily allow us to experience other dimensions, and which according to will be a myth, given enough time. Evolution will see to it.

I am not talking about a formal “system” of logic, which couldn’t even be there if consciousness were not logical at its core. I am not even talking about what possibly different results a reasoning can come up with, which could be “logical” or “illogical”, but at its core, a logical consciousness is at work, simply because it’s raw perceptions are always A=A, and then a particular reasoning based on what a particular thing is exposed to, is inclined to, has some natural tendencies towards, takes over, actually creating an absolutely unique individual. One will find more and more similarities as we go down, find groups that can be categorized, but as in a final product, things are absolutely unique.

For example, why such high odds in matching individual fingerprints, eye scans, even faces, a 100%. Are any two leafs the same except for direct perceptions, or by its definitional limitations that depends on perceptions?

However, I appreciate your very detailed reply, I will take a bit at a time and respond, that is if you have the time. I engage myself in many other things, so I hope you don’t mind some temporary delays in response.

(I will come back and read other posts; I see some quite interesting developments.)

Jamesh,

You are an interesting guy. You come up with some neat speculations, but as far as I can tell, you don't get attached to them. That's key, in my view. We can speculate any number of things, and who knows, some of them might even be true. But in the absence of evidence, there's no way to distinguish them from The Great Cheese Danish. You seem to understand this.

And, of course, it doesn't mean various speculations aren't interesting or cool. I read all kinds of New Agey things on a regular basis, as a matter of fact. I rather like a lot of them, but I don't get attached. Caveat Emptor. I'm not investing in anything until I see some evidence, and I'm especially suspicious of anything I'd really like to believe. Chances are, there's an irrational psychological motivation lurking below - an open door and a welcome mat for delusion.

Nat,

I read all kinds of New Agey things on a regular basis, as a matter of fact. I rather like a lot of them, but I don't get attached.

Nice to know; but as I think what I know of you; there is absolutely nothing really there except what is. Say, toilet brush! So your claim of non-attachment is actually redundant as far as I am concerned. If you can understand it, then understand; at least, you don’t have to tell me that.

Hehe...

Unidian wrote:Hehe...

:)

Unidian thanks. Like your comments as well. Always read what you say, and often agree. In fact, although it might be my imagination, but I think your writing style has become a lot more mature lately.

I am quite attached to my Expansion/Contraction theory (because it works for me) and I am enormously attached to philosophical materialism generally.

Mind you I think you should respond to this comment from David in the Scott thread, as he was probably applying it to you as well:

“To put it another way, Scott's liberation is that of his ego being liberated from spirit. By contrast, wisdom is spirit being liberated from the ego. They are two diametrically opposed attainments, although both involve a liberation of sorts.”

Of course with David things are always all or nothing black and white alternatives. You and all the rest of us are actually a mixture of both those attainments. I agree with David though that the later is more significant – but that value judgement is just an assumption, perhaps even caused by rote learning on this forum and from reading the appeals to greatness of the philosophers I’ve read. Nah, rationally it is more significant because the latter achieves greater outcomes for others when achieved, and it is rational, in an emotional way, to care about improving the human race, albeit that such desires for human longevity are ultimately pointless.

Nat,

To claim that my writing shows I have a fear of death, or for you to surmise I am defending the idea of an afterlife shows just how weak the internet medium is for communication. You just aren't getting me and I'm not surprised.

Well, that didn’t last long, God damn it! I had no idea where to start with your last reply, but I’ll start here with a multitude of questions to make sure I understand you:

Unidian wrote:

Because there is a strictly biological element involved, both fear of death and the drive to form relationships can exist in the absence of egotistical motivations.

Strictly biological element?

In regard to fear of death, you mean instinctively jumping out of the way of a car that’s about to hit you and the emotional ramifications consequent to such an event? Which of these would you consider to be a fear of death, if any? Or, do you mean that being afraid of death is not egotistically motivated when it stops you from committing suicide or killing someone else? Is that the rationale?

With regard to coupling, you must be planning on having children because the species needs your help in that regard, then? Or is there a strictly male biological urge to have sex on a regular basis, or to have someone to snuggle up to and cuddle at night; someone who not only has better intuition than you, but you get all these other strictly biological elements from the relationship to boot?

In fact, it might just be easier if you were to tell me what you think an egotistical motivation is, exactly?

Sure, neither happens very often, but that's another issue...

Hm, I think this is precisely the issue, actually!

I shall be bearing this in mind:

It sounds like it [a reasoned argument] should [refute a false idea] because it does, and part of you knows it. You're unable to consciously acknowledge this because fear is guiding your thinking right now. What I'm saying isn't allowed make sense because it undermines the possibility of [delete “an afterlife,” insert “false idea”] and therefore creates major cognitive dissonance. You need to recognize the mental block you're experiencing here. It's quite natural and is caused by the biological survival instinct. The cure (or at least the way to get some relief) is through undermining the sense of separation from Nature - in other words, the ego. Although the survival instinct is hard-wired and always influences our thinking to some extent, death loses a portion of its sting when you realize that individuality itself is conceptually constructed.

Jamesh:

Mind you I think you should respond to this comment from David in the Scott thread, as he was probably applying it to you as well:

“To put it another way, Scott's liberation is that of his ego being liberated from spirit. By contrast, wisdom is spirit being liberated from the ego. They are two diametrically opposed attainments, although both involve a liberation of sorts.”

I'm not interested in salvation. I'm interested in chopping wood and carrying water.

I am quite attached to my Expansion/Contraction theory (because it works for me) and I am enormously attached to philosophical materialism generally.

Have you read about universal dialectic? Just wondering, because it sounds like there's some similarity to your expansion/contraction idea.

Of course with David things are always all or nothing black and white alternatives. You and all the rest of us are actually a mixture of both those attainments. I agree with David though that the later is more significant – but that value judgement is just an assumption, perhaps even caused by rote learning on this forum and from reading the appeals to greatness of the philosophers I’ve read. Nah, rationally it is more significant because the latter achieves greater outcomes for others when achieved, and it is rational, in an emotional way, to care about improving the human race, albeit that such desires for human longevity are ultimately pointless.

Agreed. I think it's most useful to frame this "humanist" side of philosophy in terms of compassion, which is how the Buddhists have traditionally approached it. Kevin and I discussed that a good bit recently on The Reasoning Show, which should be available shortly.

Leyla:

Strictly biological element?

In regard to fear of death, you mean instinctively jumping out of the way of a car that’s about to hit you and the emotional ramifications consequent to such an event? Which of these would you consider to be a fear of death, if any? Or, do you mean that being afraid of death is not egotistically motivated when it stops you from committing suicide or killing someone else? Is that the rationale?

Nah, I mean the basic conscious/subconscious distinction. It's one thing to have a conscious fear of death because it means the extinction of the self. This is egoistic by definition, because it depends on a conscious belief in inherent existence. This sort of fear can be managed by undermining that conscious belief.

Subconsciously, however, the brain has to maintain an implicit belief in separate existence in order to magange the functions of the body such as eating, movement, and all that. So, regardless of what we do consciously, there will always be a certain element of fear associated with individual extinction. I do suspect that this can be gradually lessened to the point where it is almost non-existent if a person spends years without consciously reinforcing it, though. This seems to be the case in those individuals who report no fear of death.

With regard to coupling, you must be planning on having children because the species needs your help in that regard, then?

Heh, nope. I don't do kids. Challenging as it may be, the species will have to find a way to manage without my progeny.

Or is there a strictly male biological urge to have sex on a regular basis, or to have someone to snuggle up to and cuddle at night; someone who not only has better intuition than you, but you get all these other strictly biological elements from the relationship to boot?

The mating urge is common to all animals, excepting those that are damaged organically or psychologically (in the case of higher vertebrates). As rational animals, whether or not we choose to acknowledge or act on this urge is up to us, but unless there is some kind of physical or psychological trauma, the subconscious mind is going to keep sending the request. A possible exception to this may be the celibate monk who has been so for years, but only because the subconscious mind has simply given up in such cases. In addition, dependening on one's perspective, such alteration of brain function could be considered a form of damage.

I wouldn't go quite that far, though. I'm not suggesting that long-term celibates are brain-damaged, only that they do not exhibit "natural" psychological function (in the normative sense). Whether this is "good" or "bad" depends entirely on one's value system.

Carl to Nat,

N: No, we ultimately don't know whether there is an "afterlife."

C: Thank you. That is my point. Period.

---------

N: The only possible intellectually honest reason that can be given for believing in irrational things is "because I want to."

C: That's kind of what I've been saying on this thread all along. People have been positing all sorts of personal opinions about death and post death, and I've been saying it's fine to do so, but let's not pretend that we know.

If both of you agree, then allow me to ask this…

By whose standard would that be irrational? Yours, mine or ours?

And Carl, you can’t say, “let’s not pretend we know”. You do not know me. Do you?

May be you two don't know; but please don't include me in your we.

In fact, no one can really know any thing else other than his own “I”; through - of the I, by the I, for the I. Period

Here my friend is the real Period, if at all.

Nord,

If energy never dies, then why is the "expanding universe" slowing down...?

You seem to know much more than me as far as science is concerned, so you need to explain to me what you mean by “energy”. Is it an invisible “force” that you see as dieing off because the universe is slowing down? I mean, is energy = just the rate of motion? Is matter not a form of energy? Is light not a form of energy? Are thoughts not a form of energy?

I would say the slowing down has nothing to do with the amount of energy the bubble of big bang contains. It could shrink back to a point of singularity without loosing an iota of energy.

---The physical thing that makes it possible for such wave patterns out of which consciousness occurs.

And is the “physical” thing NOT energy? Including the wave patterns and consciousness too? I think you should understand this stuff better than me.

(Are you religious? I'm not judging, just trying to get a feel for how pointless this discussion will ultimately be...)

If you can provide evidence that a pebble of Uranium is conscious, I'll agree with you.

(You already know where I stand on religion.)

And if you prove that a pebble of Uranium exists beyond consciousness. I’ll agree with you.

For me, the concern was not “what” is conscious, but what consciousness itself is to begin with. So yes, this discussion may end up being a pointless one. The thing is, we two see consciousness differently.

Right---I'm not denying those possibilities; I'm only asking: why is it that this concept is restricted to human beings?

I think I have already expressed that in my previous post above.

S: ....against all others that you mention, and realize things beyond mere words, (*) for it’s the meaning that really counts.

N:(*) Why?

Are you serious? Well...

Because….

Did you understand the meaning of this word –“because”? Or just the 7 symbols the meaning represents? Even if I said it to you, you would hear a particular sound, and what would really matter; the sound or the meaning?

Those 7 sound representing alphabets can be rearranged to sound something else, so what would you actually grasp?

“Because” sounds different in different languages – but the meaning remains the same, so how does even sound really matter?

Without meaning, nothing is. And you ask me WHY?

Well... I like wasting time on trivial matters, but that’s me; what can I say… :D

Okay, so you're not religious; you're one of those who've replaced "God" with "Science" or "Logic," it seems.

I don’t mind you saying that; all I can say is you are yet again jumping to conclusions. Which is understandable.

I will respond to other issues in you earlier post, if you are up to it.

The expansion of the universe is not slowing down. Since 1998, it has been known that the expansion is actually accelerating due to a poorly-understood force known as "dark energy."

New Scientist is a hype rag. I read it regularly, but I learned long ago that they have a habit of publishing speculative ideas which have not been exposed to the full scientific process. Every month, you hear about the latest huge breakthrough in cosmology, most of which are never heard of again.

Unidian wrote:The expansion of the universe is not slowing down. Since 1998, it has been known that the expansion is actually accelerating due to a poorly-understood force known as "dark energy."

I know, Nat... I was simply talking to the point.

Does "talking to the point" involve stating false facts? Just asking, because you said that expansion of the universe was slowing down. It's not.

Nat,

Does "talking to the point" involve stating false facts? Just asking, because you said that expansion of the universe was slowing down.

No Nat, you are just mistaken; with all the threads that you are taking care of :D , it is understandable. You don’t need to look back and search this thread if you trust me… but if you like… you can check it out. Generally I don't like "proving" myself; I don't really need to.... however... I do like to clear up misunderstandings...

I said…

"energy never dies…..’"

To which Nordic replied…

"If energy never dies, then why is the "expanding universe" slowing down...?"

So I spoke according to what he believes. I never said that it is.

It's not.

Well... now, would you like me to speak according to what you believe? I can do that too.

But I don’t think you will ask me of that, for I think I know you a bit.

Do you really think anything is actually “expanding” or “shrinking”?

That would be my question to you. According to what I think I know of you. Unless I am wrong.

I generally weigh the person I am talking to, and speak accordingly. Otherwise, the doors of communications will be shut from the get go. If they remain open, then there could be two reasons; either the other wants to simply ague from his POV since he knows best, or appreciates a healthy conversation, which one can sense. On the other hand, if the doors are shut, then there are two reasons; either he considers me a dumb-ass and leaves, or keeps pondering over what he heard, and may agree to a certain points made.

Well… I may be wrong… but I always try to give the benefit of doubt to the other party.

In either case... doors open or shut... I ask you; would that really matter?

Toilet brush.... my friend... toilet brush... NEVER forget THAT!

You see... I speak in your language too... that is becasue I think I understand. Unless I am wrong.. heheheh :D