[The dancing game]

A good point, sir uses words, but you said weapons and words are the pointiest (they even say so)...The brain and the 'mind' are becoming one it would seem, and so why would they separate in death? Very good point..hmmmm...as for other fellow, of course there is no data! That is the problem. But given what we know, nothing that is, its about 50 50 I'd say since each side has the same amount of data supporting it. Though in reality, since nothing has already rigged the game back there, I'd say it's taken a bolt ahead of somethingness. By the way, Uses Things, did I mention I really enjoyed your point? That was great.

[Use Of Weapons]

You can't say that the probability of either case becomes 50:50 due to our lack of knowledge -- that's a logical fallacy. The probability of any occurence (or of any state pertaining) remains unchanged by our knowledge of it -- it is merely the _accuracy_ of our estimations of its probability that changes.

[The dancing game]

Again, there's a 100% chance of whatever will happen happening, that's the real probability =P We can only guess, which is the point. I wish to guess to the best of my ability. This is all practical, in its own odd way, a way to think through life perhaps, since all you can ever really do is guess.

[The dancing game]

Also, isn't probably working on a lack of knowledge? You don't know what card will come up. It can be anything. But you can see if one thing is more likely than another.

[Trull's son]

The dancing game, on 14 June 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Ahhh, but Purple Unicorns are NOT the opposite of nothing! they are the opposite of a small part of nothing. SOMETHING, all of something is the opposite of nothing, unicorns are but a part of something. They're the .00001%. Very unlikely.

"something...is the opposite of nothing" is most likely incorrect. I suggest reading A Universe from Nothing, by Lawrence Krauss. The book basically explores the human conception of nothing, and how its continuous redefinition in the face of scientific discovery leaves many philosophers grasping for whatever space they can crawl into in terms of defining "nothingness". There is enough evidence to argue that something is derived from nothing, at least in out universe. There is no clear line dividing that which exists, and that which does not.

Any mention of human consciousness and its division from the material world is laughable. As some others have mentioned, the evidence does not suggest that there is such a thing, regardless of religious claims or human desire (they are likely the same thing). I should clarify that the "nothingness" after death mentioned in previous posts,as I understand it, refers to one's own ability to see and interact with the universe. It is almost certain that the something of everything is still there after one dies, and so is the person (just in smaller, not human, pieces).

It seems like any definition of an "after-life" should not include finality of consciousness, as I am fairly sure we are talking about the human life. To say that the nothingness after death is a form of after life seems like an unnecessary semantic foundation. No more life -- that is to say, the end of that biological mess that some people deem enough to differentiate living matter from the other stuff -- should end any use of the term "life" in its definition. Not to say I agree that life is anything more than an interesting and intricate combination and re-combination of matter, but for the sake of argument we should probably set some boundaries in terms of how we use our limited vocabulary.

edit: words and stuff

This post has been edited by Trull's son: 16 June 2012 - 01:29 AM

[Use Of Weapons]

Physically, yes, something can be derived from nothing. But we're talking about formal logic, in which the terms 'something exists' and 'nothing exists' are opposites, and their union is the sum equalling 1 (i.e. in formal logic the probability that _either_ something exists _or_ that nothing exists is always 1)

[Trull's son]

I see. Well then that makes sense in terms of the thread discussion. I was rather confused for the most part. I guess it comes down to a debate as to which outcome is most probable, and how much of the sum total is divided between the likelihood of something and that of nothing, if I understand correctly. That said, I'm fairly sure it has been discussed in previous posts, so there's not much I can add.

I do have a question about formal logic. Is it restricted by certain parameters? I mean, unique parameters that were at some point worked into it? I'm not sure I am being clear. I guess I mean that since the physical universe is considered separate from formal logic, at least in terms of probability and certain definitions, would it be alright if I consider it as a closed system somewhat apart from our physical 'system'. This would mean that since formal logic does not necessarily succumb to the same limitations as the physical world, there must be an entire set of rules which govern it that may not be the same as those which govern our universe; rules that I know nothing about, it seems. This does not sit well with me. I guess I should do some reading.

This post has been edited by Trull's son: 16 June 2012 - 03:32 PM

[The dancing game]

They're not opposites, any more than an orange and an apple each in a bag, reach in and pull out...nothing, hah =P but the point is between the apple and an orange its an even change, if the person isnt awful.
As for the person talking about physical stuff and goop, I would agree. A digression though for previously stated reasons but an interesting one, we should continue it. The book seems intriguing, maybe. Though: The possibility of a 'soul' as some sort of unusual electrical field (or some other sort of radiation, you get the idea). Also, as for my horrible relationship with language, perhaps we could specifically draw a difference in simply saying 'afterdeath'? though it would be after life if you wanted to be technical I think, though I think your point reminded me kinda of the difference between a person and an unperson (1984!).
Also, although this is wrong, it was an odd mindfuckery to go through. Nothing in our universe truly means anything...is this nothingness, everything but our consciousness? No...but...to think about, odd.
Oh, another one, when I say 'nothingness' that is not what I meant. Its the destruction of the consciousness, and so, everything. Everything in our physical world is just what our consciousness tells it to be. you can argue that plenty, but look at a person hallucinating, what's the difference between them and you? In their worlds, you're hallucinating. So with the annihilation of the consciousness, so too goes everything else (maybe not to the rest of the world, if other people exist like you, but to you it does, and so...it does. All that matters is yourself really, which is funny.) I feel like I may have rambled a bit, and left holes, but I have no doubt you can find them and fill them in, or criticize them. Whatever works.

[Use Of Weapons]

Trull, on 16 June 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

I see. Well then that makes sense in terms of the thread discussion. I was rather confused for the most part. I guess it comes down to a debate as to which outcome is most probable, and how much of the sum total is divided between the likelihood of something and that of nothing, if I understand correctly. That said, I'm fairly sure it has been discussed in previous posts, so there's not much I can add.

I do have a question about formal logic. Is it restricted by certain parameters? I mean, unique parameters that were at some point worked into it? I'm not sure I am being clear. I guess I mean that since the physical universe is considered separate from formal logic, at least in terms of probability and certain definitions, would it be alright if I consider it as a closed system somewhat apart from our physical 'system'. This would mean that since formal logic does not necessarily succumb to the same limitations as the physical world, there must be an entire set of rules which govern it that may not be the same as those which govern our universe; rules that I know nothing about, it seems. This does not sit well with me. I guess I should do some reading.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. There are certain rules which are derivations from first principles, which in effect act as shortcuts in a derivation. But like any formal system, it cannot be proven using its own set of rules and axioms (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem). I'd recommend looking up 'propositional logic' and formal logic. http://www.iep.utm.edu/prop-log/

[The dancing game]

Trull, on 16 June 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

I see. Well then that makes sense in terms of the thread discussion. I was rather confused for the most part. I guess it comes down to a debate as to which outcome is most probable, and how much of the sum total is divided between the likelihood of something and that of nothing, if I understand correctly. That said, I'm fairly sure it has been discussed in previous posts, so there's not much I can add.

I do have a question about formal logic. Is it restricted by certain parameters? I mean, unique parameters that were at some point worked into it? I'm not sure I am being clear. I guess I mean that since the physical universe is considered separate from formal logic, at least in terms of probability and certain definitions, would it be alright if I consider it as a closed system somewhat apart from our physical 'system'. This would mean that since formal logic does not necessarily succumb to the same limitations as the physical world, there must be an entire set of rules which govern it that may not be the same as those which govern our universe; rules that I know nothing about, it seems. This does not sit well with me. I guess I should do some reading.

I do not understand either. Isn't our own physical system (our bodies?) the same as the physical universe? And going off what I think I understood, perhaps there isn't really a division at all unless you put it there?

[Trull's son]

@TDG, when I said 'physical system' I was indeed referring to our physical universe. My question(s) were in order to establish if there is a division between the physical system, and the laws which it must obey, and the logical system, where different rules may apply. These were of course questions, and thus I cannot comment further on the possibility of this separation, if there is indeed any separation at all. I have yet to read up on the subject, but I will get started on the link posted by UoW.

[Trull's son]

The dancing game, on 16 June 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

clip

Oh, another one, when I say 'nothingness' that is not what I meant. Its the destruction of the consciousness, and so, everything. Everything in our physical world is just what our consciousness tells it to be. you can argue that plenty, but look at a person hallucinating, what's the difference between them and you? In their worlds, you're hallucinating. So with the annihilation of the consciousness, so too goes everything else (maybe not to the rest of the world, if other people exist like you, but to you it does, and so...it does. All that matters is yourself really, which is funny.) I feel like I may have rambled a bit, and left holes, but I have no doubt you can find them and fill them in, or criticize them. Whatever works.

I think that claiming that our consciousness shapes everything is a bit... arrogant. The idea that people have that power over the universe seems silly. How we may interpret and understand everything may rely completely on the subjective nature of human consciousness, but it seems like it is more likely that the universe exists outside of human control.

Differentiating between what is reality and that which may be hallucinated seems easy enough. Our understanding of information may be subjective, but we have created tools to derive data that, on its own, describe events, concepts, and 'things' in an objective way. We might, for example, know an equation that perfectly describes a curve. Easy enough. Now some fellow may one day see his Cosine as a Tangent. This hallucination, though perhaps real for this fellow, is wrong. Plain and simple. The curve he sees is not an accurate representation of our line's equation. An argument against this would be that he understood the equation differently. That is the beauty about mathematical representation; one's understanding may actually be wrong, most likely because a mathematical description is often separate from human opinion, and thus delusion. With the scientific method backed by mathematics, we can trim post-modernist ideas (there is no truth, everything is possible,..)down to a matter of competing plausibility. Though people are allowed their interpretation and opinion, it certainly does not legitimize those opinions if there is no evidence to support them. Certainly not if the evidence is anecdotal.

[Use Of Weapons]

Trull, on 16 June 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

The dancing game, on 16 June 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

clip

Oh, another one, when I say 'nothingness' that is not what I meant. Its the destruction of the consciousness, and so, everything. Everything in our physical world is just what our consciousness tells it to be. you can argue that plenty, but look at a person hallucinating, what's the difference between them and you? In their worlds, you're hallucinating. So with the annihilation of the consciousness, so too goes everything else (maybe not to the rest of the world, if other people exist like you, but to you it does, and so...it does. All that matters is yourself really, which is funny.) I feel like I may have rambled a bit, and left holes, but I have no doubt you can find them and fill them in, or criticize them. Whatever works.

I think that claiming that our consciousness shapes everything is a bit... arrogant. The idea that people have that power over the universe seems silly. How we may interpret and understand everything may rely completely on the subjective nature of human consciousness, but it seems like it is more likely that the universe exists outside of human control.

It's a common resort of the post-modern, post-structuralist, and deconstructionist mode of scientific critique, however (to the extent that it can legitimately be called a critique, given its patent absurdity, resorts to special pleading and fallacious logic, and thorough failure to understand even the most basic science it purports to critique). The relativist position is one that attempts to undermine the scientist's view that there is an objective reality that can be measured and understood through careful repeated observation, and in doing so, elevate its own perspective to one of at least equivalence, if not superiority, to that of the scientist. It generally attempts to do so by appeals to authority, by the invocation of poorly-understood (by them) facets of mathematical theories, notably chaos theory, Heisenbergian uncertainty, and Gödel's Incompleteness theorem. They generally drastically misunderstand these by reading the words not in their specific technical meanings, but taking them as labels to be interpreted apparently at whim.

Essentially, if you ever encounter someone who responds to a claim of objective truth with something along the lines of the relativism position, you can be fairly sure that they are a post-modernist, and thereafter happily ignore them. They generally don't even notice.

[worry]

They're also basically cheeseballs.

[Trull's son]

In essence post-modernism isn't necessarily wrong. There are probably few actual facts that we can derive even with the scientific method. But that is more in terms of the precision of measurements and data, rather than a failure to know anything as truth. So people may never be 100% right, but evidence may suggest that something is 99.9% likely. Post modernism certainly should not ignore scientific endeavor. I imagine hard core post-modernists (what I suppose are called relativists) are insanely frustrating to deal with.

This post has been edited by Trull's son: 16 June 2012 - 08:44 PM

[Use Of Weapons]

These days, post-modernists are more likely to declare that any attempt to derive knowledge is doomed to failure, as it's based on outmoded models whose foundation (in a male-dominated, Western classical scientific tradition) enforces a viewpoint that makes any results biased beyond recognition. And that furthermore, it refuses to admit that other cultural 'ways of knowing' (like, for example, tribal myths, hocus pocus, and other new age flummery) are not equally valid explanatory frameworks and should be taken at least as seriously.

So yeah: annoying.

This post has been edited by UseOfWeapons: 17 June 2012 - 09:33 AM

[Trull's son]

That description of post modernists left me feeling a little depressed. I better get back to a lighter topic, like more reading about propositional logic. Speaking of which, I forgot about some of what I learned in a prerequisite first-year uni course that dealt with the subject of propositional logic, at least at a basic level. The link provided is definitely easier to understand than the course I took, and yet it is more thorough.

This post has been edited by Trull's son: 16 June 2012 - 10:17 PM

[The dancing game]

Arrogant? Absolutely. A great place to be standing, really, as far as I can see unassailable. You can say that the world exists outside our own perception of it all you want, but how will we ever know? Our senses can lie to us, we know that, and I'm sure...oh my god...I want to do this to someone one day...if you were to take a person, and stimulate the right parts of their brain, you could put them into an entirely different universe. It would be as real to them as ours is to us. And before you say ours is 'more correct' than this poor fool's, with arguments like 'other people support this', is it not possible that this person has other people in his delusions as well? Not to mention, things you see every day, me, you, other people, are just reflections of our own consciousness (a somewhat actually interesting thing, unlike all the other rubbish I'v just vomited), we only see others in terms of ourselves and can't help it. We really can't be sure of anything, since its all based on individual perception. Now I'm going to step down and hate myself for a very long time for being forced into this position, because I truly hate it when people have this view, as I have found myself to be an irrational person. I don't believe it, I'm just using it =P I don't find that view unlikely as you claim, simply utterly arbitrary, and against much that I believe in.

[Sparrohawk]

Quote

if you were to take a person, and stimulate the right parts of their brain, you could put them into an entirely different universe.

You can do something similar already. It's called Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, or TMS for short. Electromagnetic pulses to various areas of cortex can create short-lived visual hallucinations, involuntary muscle movements, short-term inability to speak, amongst other things. It's far from Alternate Reality, but it answers your point. Their experience is reflected in brain activity (analogues of that activity have been observed while these pulses are administered). The person can lucidly describe their experience, and it can be corroborated by others who have experienced similar things in the experiment.

It's like asking if a schizophrenic's hallucinations are 'real'. In the sense that those experiences are reflected in brain activity and are (partly) observable, sure. They're real. It may not be a particularly relevant point, though; it's not something anyone else can get at in terms of specifics, and nobody else is experiencing precisely what they are.

Quote

We really can't be sure of anything, since its all based on individual perception

You can't be absolutely sure, no. But there are ways of being pretty damn sure that we're all seeing and understanding the same thing (let's call it A). It may turn out that, in the future, we need to recontextualise our understanding of 'A' such that it is no longer recognisable as 'A' but rather 'A*' or even 'B' or something conceptually outside what our analogous alphabet can describe. The point is that we might be totally wrong. But we have to start somewhere, and a consensus on what certain facts mean is one of the better (perhaps more stable/reliable) ways of doing it. We may be wrong. But there are many, many, MANY reasons to think that 'A' is what's actually going on. Beyond what 'A' can describe is anybody's guess, and you're welcome to think whatever you like that makes you comfortable

[Use Of Weapons]

But the point of Sparrohawk's last paragraph is not that if found to be wrong, everything we know will need to be thrown out -- that's a misconception. Instead, we will have to incorporate what we previously knew into any new formulation of the truth of reality. Science is a series of ever-closer approximations to the truth.