Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rose Immortal
Remember the computer metaphor I was using? I'm sure the brain does change and grow with each thought--just as a hard drive stores data when you write a file and save it. But it doesn't rule out the idea of the end user being there (in this case, spirit).  |
Sure, it doesn't rule out a lot of possible things, like us being simulated inside a vast computer in another universe, being in the matrix or being aliens on another planet who are just dreaming. We work with what we know exists. It seems like a neural network operating with action potentials is good enough. Maybe someday they'll build a good AI and some people might ask if the AI has a soul.
Quote:
|
You could measure that, and I have a feeling it would be useful for something (the equivalent of CIs for those who have lost their sight and wish to regain it?). But here's the question. Does the same firing of neurons translate to the same experience as mine? We may agree that a certain light frequency is "red", but is my experience of that frequency the same? That's the thing we can't measure or prove. Does this distinction make sense?
|
There would be a distinction if different people used somewhat differnt ways to mean the same thing. Studies of how vision works show that everybody's basic structures are pretty much the same, but some details might be different like what photoreceptors there are. We agree on what is red by making references to agreed upon red objects. We haven't gotten to where we can examine the details of everybody's vision system easily yet.
Quote:
|
But what of the cases when there is a measurable time where the brain is completely flatlined (no electrical activity at all), yet the person registers the passage of time and is aware of things said and done in the room...or maybe even outside the room? How can it be that the person remembers those things when the brain had completely ceased all functions? That's where it gets really tricky, and to me it seems like when the spirit and body reconnected, the spirit would have to "upload" all of that information to the brain. That sudden upload at the moment of resuscitation would have to be a strange thing to experience.
|
The flatlining doesn't take up all of the time that a person is out. There's the process of being oxygen starved and running down. Dreams can seem to take a long time, but they don't take up the whole sleep time.
Quote:
|
I believe his idea was, if the thing does not exist, it is inherently imperfect due to its inexistence.
|
That's an assumption that the arguement makes. I consider the perfect planet destorying mothership to be one that doesn't exist.
Quote:
If I recall right, one of the pages I gave you deals with a logical objection a lot like yours; you might be interested in seeing that.
Like I said, I didn't think it was the BEST argument out there--the reason I posed it was because of the "God in one's head" comment you made...it just reminded me of this.
|
The objection to the objection depended on the god having intrinsic maximums of the characteristics to make sure that everybody would agree what would make a god great. The objection was an objection to the example with the greatest island because different people might have different ideas of what makes an island great. Would people really think that an omnimax god is the greatest possible god? People who don't like Big Brother would not like a god knowing every detail of what goes on in their bedrooms and the room with the white throne. So there could be disagreement about what would make a god great. So that's an objection to an objection to an objection.
It's interesting how Kant said that existence shouldn't be considered a great-making property. Before other great-making properties can be assigned to something, existence must be presupposed. So it's not proper to consider existence a great-making property because existence isn't really a property. Here's what one of the sites says about it:
Quote:
|
While Kant's criticism is phrased (somewhat obscurely) in terms of the logic of predicates and copulas, it also makes a plausible metaphysical point. Existence is not a property (in, say, the way that being red is a property of an apple). Rather it is a precondition for the instantiation of properties in the following sense: it is not possible for a non-existent thing to instantiate any properties because there is nothing to which, so to speak, a property can stick. Nothing has no qualities whatsoever. To say that x instantiates a property P is hence to presuppose that x exists. Thus, on this line of reasoning, existence isn't a great-making property because it is not a property at all; it is rather a metaphysically necessary condition for the instantiation of any properties.
|
Quote:
|
It is part of the reality YOU personally know, though, even if you suspect it to be imagined (so we shall call it of a lesser order of reality to this, a senior reality). But how can you ultimately prove that I am real--or that anything outside yourself is real?
|
What does "real" mean? I say that it means things that I can detect in some way. We each have our own little realities that includes things we've detected in the external reality and things we've come to believe in despite those things not being in external reality.
Quote:
|
I actually wrote a sci-fi fanfiction once where there was a weapon based on that premise, and the effect of that weapon's discharge was something like an EMP for the brain (for lack of better words), and resulted in death to any living thing exposed and disrupted long enough...not a pleasant weapon to contemplate, that's for sure.
|
Interesting ideas.
Quote:
|
I lean towards the "block time" idea, as you call it...that also fits with the "Alpha and Omega" description implying that God is equally present and unchanging at what we see as the beginning and end of time. However, your idea of a god creating another god leads into something interesting--if an infinite being "creates" an infinite being, then really they must be united because of the inherent nature of infinity (terrible phrasing, forgive me!). There could only be one God, even if He is "beyond [our finite notions of] personality," as C.S. Lewis would put it. The reason this is interesting to me is because you're getting at a description that sounds a LOT like the Christian Trinity...
|
If you say that the inherent nature of infinity would make an infinite number of creators into one god, then what about a finite number like three?
Quote:
|
Why is it better--what is that value rooted in, if ultimately it's all a moot point in the end? Is it simply because you decide so? Why would you give sacrificially, at a cost to yourself? Would not the better choice be to do what is expedient for yourself and only yourself, if nothing matters in the end?
|
People who help each other help humanity to survive. It is rooted in the desire to have one's own kind survive. If I give at a cost to myself, it would be for the greater good. If I cannot do this, I would try to survive myself so I may be helpful in future situtions. Knowing that humanity would end in some way in the future doesn't make me feel like doing things for only myself because it's likely to be in the far future compared to human lifespans. For me, the point of helping humanity is to allow other people to experience life and enjoy it while there still is humanity. Once humanity doesn't exist, that would not change how plenty of people have had enjoyable lives as a result of helping each other. So why not help people have positive experiences while there are still people?