Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RedFox
The people might think that the experience was during the whole time they were out. Since we found that dreams and experiences like that could last for short times, but seem like a long time, the shutdown and rebooting periods should be enough time for such experiences.
|
That still doesn't account for people conclusively knowing the events that occurred
between those windows (such as exact words said). There have been cases of that.
Quote:
It may look like logic. It may actually be logic. But if it's based on false premises, it'd be true within the belief systems and not necessary in the real world. 
|
Big IF...when you're dealing with premises that can't be proven 100%, then you still can't say I'm wrong.
Quote:
|
Here's an interesting page on the Shield of the Trinity. It looks similar to governments because we could say that the governement is interested in something if Congress is, or if the President is, or the FBI are. But Congress is not the President and the President is not the Congress. They are members of the same group and can sometimes be called by the name of the group, the United States federal government.
|
Nice simile.
Although with the Trinity I'd suggest you have more of a synergistic effect rather than checks and balances with the government where the purpose is limitation of power rather than the multiplication of it--after all, you know what they say about absolute power, when it comes to human beings...
Quote:
|
Being more grounded in reality would mean not assigning a purpose as a fundamental property to the universe. Admitting that one's purposes in life is not tied to the nature of the universe to such a high degree, like physics is, is being more realistic. If there are any created purposes of life that are not based in some way on surviving, then such things may be self-deception, but at least they won't be tied tightly to the universe or seen to be more important than they really are to the universe at large.
|
The last statement you make continues to be troubling, and gets at my whole problem with this logic. Even your survival is irrelevant to the universe at large--perhaps infinitessimally small (or almost so if the universe happens to be finite in side). The conclusion that follows from this is that there is no reason why one should not simply commit suicide if survival is unimportant. If the end state is extinction and the importance of fighting this is infinitessimally small (or almost so), then isn't any energy expended in fighting extinction wasted energy, a futile effort? Compare that to the amount of energy that would be expended in committing suicide. One way would "cost" less: suicide. What I am trying to demonstrate is that survival is an irrational goal in a universe where there is no
inherent purpose to live--essentially that survival would go against self-interest, or even the interests of the human race (why not just have a mass suicide of all intelligent beings?).
(Apologies to anybody upset by the mention of this. I do not advocate suicide in the least!)