Philosophical Questions

I absolutely love this. Again during dinner this topic came up, and most of it is completely over over my head bu tI find it incredibly interesting.

Solipsism. Look it up.

huhhhhhhhh,,,, what-is-exist???  for that matter. and define, imagination.

Solipsists believe that reality does not exist, as in, the objects you see are not real, they are not there, they don't exist. They believe that the only thing that "exists" is our mind, no bones, blood, skin, tissues, nothing except our mind. Our mind, therefore, has created the world we see, the feelings we experience, the people we interact with, quite frankly, everything.

you do realize this is a joke... and philosophy may be infinitely stupid.. for that matter what is infinity?

it's not a joke. and what does defining infinity have anything to do with Solipsism?

Solipsism is a very interesting. There are quite a few people in the scheme of things that believe in Solipsism in the modern world. You sir are the joke of a person.

theoretically that means the only thing you ever really touched is your mom, when you were born

i love thinking about this.

nope, the electrons still repelled at that point as well. theoretically you've never truly touched anything.

what's dumb?

I've spent a few days trying to comprehend infinity/nothing and never got there

Does this mean that all the molecules inside you aren't actually touching as well?

torture doesnt work and that's not philosophy

same. freaking me out.

YOU ARE NOW BREATHING AND BLINKING MANUALLY! YOU JUST REALIZED THERE IS NO COMFORTABLE PLACE IN YOUR MOUTH FOR YOUR TONGUE!
THATS RIGHT YOU JUST GOT FUCKED OVER

you're assuming others exist by asking the question

The initiation of force is always morally wrong. The tribe is morally wrong in killing you both, and you would be morally wrong in killing your companion.

Nothing matters except the initiation of the use of force. In real life you can never be sure that the train will kill the people it's rolling towards. You are not responsible for what the train does. However, you are fully responsible for pushing the fat person.

Utilitarianism is not a consistent moral philosophy and as such is a useless moral philosophy.

I've never seen China. OMG CHINA AND JESUS IS THE SAME PERSON.

No we could not.

It wouldn't be a dust molecule. It would be our universe, only relatively smaller. If you believe that, kill yourself. No. Wavelengths can be measured the same by everyone so it doesnt matter. And yes we can prove it. Light interacts with our eyes and brains in very specific ways. No evidence for that so it doesnt matter. No, our lifetime is equivalent to our lifetime, not nothing. They don't. We could be, but there's no proof so we must regard such an opinion as nonsense.

Yes, but it's so tiny as to be insignificant. Our sun will not turn into a black hole, it's not massive enough. It is not entirely random, there are well observed and defined laws of physics. Tinier-er-er stuff. You can never know what not existing is like, it's impossible for any life form to experience. science.

^dat octo post

the universe might not continue forever. if you travel in one direction far enough, you may return to where you started, sort of like a 4 dimensional donut. Of course it could also be infinite. Current calculations allow for both possibilities. Either way, we would perceive it as going on forever because there would never be an edge. There is no end.

This is all nonsense

This is a complete misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly like that, but it's a pretty common one. The key to understanding your misunderstanding is that observing does not mean seeing. The other error is to mistake hypotheses for theories or facts.

except the concept of the christian god is illogical and self-contradictory whereas we know that human beings exist. The argument comparing Jesus to da Vinci is stronger, but only if you leave out the supernatural stuff. And even then it's pretty silly.

Subjective morality is better defined as "opinion" or "bigotry." I prefer to leave the term morality for universal proposals

there is no way to ever know something 100% What we can do is use the scientific method to bring it as close to 100% as possible. Sadly for many, gods remain at 0% proof.

I meant as in the presence of matter changes the behavior of other matter, not like me casting my attention upon a lamp makes it become a lamp. Also, where did I say a hypothesis was a fact? It's true that matter can exist in two places at once. You just went through and mis corrected everyone's posts.

Sorry, I shouldn't have directed it at you. I was addressing this,"so this means that there are some physicists, literally some of the smartest people of our time, who believe that when you are looking away from something, and no one else is watching it, it literally is mass of grey ooze that is existing in multiple universes." Which now that I've stopped to think I realize you were putting it forward as other people's ideas. I misrepresented what you said and so I offer all apologies to you.

just curious, what about utilitarianism is inconsistent?

Inconsistent might be the wrong word. Insane works a little better. Consider this situation: two men and a little girl are on an island, the two men want to rape the little girl, the little girl does not want to be raped. In this case, the greatest good to those on the island would be the rape of the little girl. I think it may have been Aristotle that said if your moral theory allows rape and murder to be a moral good, you need to rethink things. Also, this says nothing about the arguments, but it's important to examine where utilitarianism comes from. One of its greatest proponents, John Stuart Mill, was drilled by his father in heavy topics to create the carrier of the torch of utilitarianism. He wasn't allowed to have any friends his own age and his schooling continued until the point at which he had a mental break down. All for the greater good, his father said. And again, that says nothing about the philosophical arguments, but I think it gives you a good idea of why Mill held the beliefs he had.

It's also inconsistent in that "the greater good" is completely subjective. It has been argued that the happiness of two people cannot be combined to create "greater happiness" because happiness is a subjective feeling experienced by individuals that can't be quantified. Utilitarianism is inconsistent because as you break it down to its base components, you realize that it can't be logically justified. Now, most moral philosophies turn to turtles once you go down far enough, so that's not just a criticism of utilitarianism in particular. Also, it runs into the problem that, even if we say happiness of multiple individuals can be quantified and added together (which it cannot), just because that is, why ought we act on it?

good answer

ITT: kids that were told they are smarter than everybody else

your first comment only displays your extremely self centered opinion. you are ignorant to the rest of the universe as are many people. in relation to us, our universe would be our universe, in relation to others who inhabited a much larger scaled world, we would be a dust speck.

If you're saying our universe's size in that other universe would be perceived by those in the larger universe as the size of a dust particle is relative to us, I agree with you.  My point was that a dust speck and a universe could never be mistaken as the same thing no matter the scale if one had the ability to properly observe, measure, and test. I'm fairly certain that we're in agreement, but let me know if I'm still not understanding.

I didn't say everyone perceives light in the exact same way. What I meant was that there are objective ways to determine the properties of wave lengths and how they are perceived. The example you gave, glasses and contacts, are a product of this knowledge. We understand how someone perceives light due to imperfections in the structure of their eyes and are then able to use artificial lenses to correct it towards a standard. Rods and cones certainly don't develop at the same rate in everyone. My point was that we know how they work. Perception of color isn't random. That's why we understand that color blindness is a deviation from the preferred norm and not just a subjective perception of color. Again, I believe we are in agreement on 99% of this.

Our lifetimes constitute a certain amount of time. Compared to infinity, the amount of time we are alive represents a fraction smaller than the human mind is capable of comprehending, so small as to be insignificant. However, that isn't the same as "nothing." Nothing implies an absolute zero or nonexistence.

No, hallucinogenic drugs don't allow us to perceive what the world is really like any more than being sober allows us to see what the world is really like. That's not to say that what we experience on drugs is "incorrect." The universe exists as it exists whether humans perceive it or not.  Whether we are tripping or sober, our perception of the universe is limited to the abilities of our senses and the ways in which our brain interprets them. For example, no matter what we take or don't take, we'll never be able to see ultraviolet light without artificial aids. At any given time we're only experience one tiny slice of the greater pie.

Nonsense may have been the wrong word. Let me put it this way, as long as there's no evidence to believe that we are minds existing in a platonic realm creating the illusion of our world, it remains as valid a question as "What if nobody really moves and what we perceive as movement is just the result of tiny little invisible leprechauns tugging us around?" And yes, the same goes for the question of "What if there are these forms of consciousness that exist without any detectable properties?"

Could you give me an example of something I believe in without proof?

The world definitely isn't  purely black and white, and I don't see it that way. The universe is a messy place with plenty of grey areas. However, truth exists. Biologists don't see a horse born with six legs and say, "Well damn, there goes our entire classification system." They see that horse and recognize it as the result of an inherently chaotic and unpredictable universe. An entirely grey universe would result in paralysis, a world in which you couldn't step outside for fear of the asteroid that may plow into you; you couldn't stay inside because what if a panther crept into your house in the middle of the night and is waiting for you to let your guard down? Existence would be madness in such a world. So we must live as if our universe is, at least in part, black and white. And if we wish to experience the most freedom possible, it's necessary to make decisions in the closest approximation to truth as we are able.

There are few things that anyone can be 100% sure about,   but im assuming youll argue for justification from high probability and practicality,   and i agree.



Question:  Is it better to restrict your beliefs to things you are 100% sure about and as a result have few beliefs, Or have looser qualifications for belief, but risk having many false beliefs.

misunderstood what you said on the first two points, yes we are in agreement on them haha

second option. thats me.

so it doesnt bother you that a lot of things you think are wrong?     that seems awful to me.

and this doesnt really have anything to do with imagination,   when you imagine something you arent believing it to be true.       it would be weird if you did

I think you've already hit the nail on the head with my beliefs. The only things I would ever say I'm 100% sure about are ideas, concepts, or beliefs that are self-contradictory or logically impossible (e.g. the Judeo-Christian god and 2+2=5).

Aside from that, there are things that are so supported by logic, reason, and empirical evidence that it would be asinine to question them. For example, I don't imagine that the next time I stand up I'll fall through the floor, gravity will reverse itself, or that the contrary to all evidence, Earth is actually flat.

The beauty of having methodologies like the scientific method and Aristotelian logic is that I don't have to be 100% sure of things to accept them or believe them. I follow the best evidence and reasoning available and if I'm presented with new evidence or superior logic I adapt my beliefs as necessary. I'm not beholden to any ideology. I see things a bit differently than you. I think there is much more variety, insight, and wonder in keeping to strict methodologies for determining truth. It's low thresh-holds for belief that  trap people in narrow-minded ideologies. Imagine the beliefs of, say, Rick Santorum. I would bet everything I own that my beliefs are much more rich, diverse, and -more importantly- closer to the truth than those that he holds.

I don't mean to put myself forward as some god of science and logic. I've stumbled down as many wrong paths as anyone else. Among the sillier beliefs I've held have been those in bigfoot, ufos, ghosts, and plenty of other equally unsupported ideas. But better reasoning and greater knowledge is something I'll continue to work towards because I subscribe to the idea that truth is a necessary component for happiness.

why is that definition of God logically impossible?   It seems like the very definition that it is all powerful/good and personal would make it go beyond our supposed logical possibilities wouldnt it?   or is that some sort of circular reasoning,    its tricky

The definition of that god is logically impossible for two main reasons.

The first is more philosophical. It's said to be both all-knowing and all-powerful. If an entity is all knowing, then it knows everything that can and will happen throughout all time. If it is all-powerful, it has the ability to change anything it wants at will. These two aspects contradict each other. If the god can change things in the free will sense, then it can't be all-knowing. If it is all-knowing and foresees these changes, then it  lacks free will and can't be considered all powerful.

Keep in mind, I'm granting the theology a lot to even get to the point of discussing that issue. There are parts in the bible that clearly state that the god isn't all-knowing or all-powerful. Also I'd like to mention again that this isn't a criticism of the personal beliefs that many people hold, just of the god in the Old and New Testament.

Secondly, there are many scientific issues. The one I'll focus on here is the problem that consciousness is inexorably tied to matter. Just as we can say for certain that there aren't super-cosmic hermit crabs that exist free from the material world, we can say the same for consciousness. This does not bode well for a god that is said to be consciousness without form.

 

I forgot to address your last question. The word "god" is pretty charged let's talk about an "oogly boogly" instead. Imagine the following scenario:

Me:  That's a nice oogly boogly sitting on your shoulder.

You look down and don't see anything.

You: I don't see anything.

Me: Silly, you can't see an oogly boogly, they're invisible.

You: Oh well that's ok, I'll just touch it.

You swipe your hand at your shoulder and feel nothing.

Me: Haha, you can't touch an oogly boogly.

You: Oh, well I'll just get a thermal camera.

Me: Doesn't work.

You: X-Ray machine?

Me: Nope.

You: Is there anything I can do to detect it?

Me: Of course not, an oogly boogly is entirely undectable.

You: Can you at least tell me what it is?

Me: Why of course, it's an oogly boogly!

You: Yes, but what are its characteristics?

Me: It's characteristics? Those are unknowable.

You: Wait, so you're saying the oogly boogly is completely undetectable and unknowable in any way?

Me: Exactly!

You: But that's just the same as nonexistence!

Me: .... the oogly boogly loves you

(1) This is kind of tricky for me to explain (because I don't fully understand or remember it), but god's free will and omnipotence might not prove contradictory if God exists outside the constraints of space and time. I'm probably going to butcher this expiation but I'll give it a shot (hopefully someone that knows something more about physics/this problem). The basic idea is that by existing outside of time God could 'know' everything simultaneously. Predicting his actions becomes irrelevant because the concept of predicting something assumes that the predicting took place before the action. However, if God exists outside of time then there is no 'before' and in turn, no prediction/foreseeing. If the concept of prediction/foreseeing is rendered irrelevant then so is the worry of God's existence being logically impossible. Again its hard for me to wrap my head around this idea but I think it is pretty interesting idea and has potential.

I would leave the discussion about the stuff written in the bible out of the conversation, there is lot of contradictory and nonsensical stuff going on in the bible and it doesn't mean anything about the logical possibility of God except in a narrow interpretation.

(2) The scientific objection doesn't speak to the logical possibility of super-cosmetic hermit crabs or God. If it can't be shown that immaterial super-cosmetic hermit crabs don't exist, then it could still be logically possible. Just because science can't currently explain any way for consciousness to exist w/o matter doesn't rule out logical (or even nomological) possibility.

My view is that you can't rule out the logical possibility of God's existence, but I think that God (by most common definitions) existing is not the best explanation for human experience or the way our world works.The biggest strike against God's existence from my perspective is the problem of evil. I won't get into that now but I'd like to have that conversation in the future.

Its been fun procrastinating, I always enjoy talkin' a little philosophy!