Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.
OK, but I reserve the right to send it on to Susan!
I understand the other examples , but isn’t something unknown if it has not yet been proven known?
nervous gulp
I don’t think it’s possible for a Boltzmann Brain to presuppose the Christian God.
In my worldview there can be no such being.
If I understand BBs they are purely material things and purely materiel things are incapable of thought. From my perspective a purely materiel thing that thinks is like a square circle. It’s logily impossible
From the perspective of your worldview on the other hand it seems such things are inevitable and you most likely are one.
peace
Perhaps that is because you don’t often make unwarranted assertions about what actually is.
That is why you are my favorite. 😉
peace
No, I don’t think I do.
At least not “knowledge in general” that we are discussing.
Do tell
If God tells me something then he exists. That should be obvious.
It’s exactly the same with God. I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you
The declaration that an infallible source chose to tell me in an infallible way presupposes the existence of the infallible source
That only works if it is indeed infallible.
peace
That is of course exactly why I ask the question. I’m waiting for someone to offer justification for knowledge with out the Christian God.
In the context of the “what am I missing” statement I’d like to know how someone would ever come to the conclusion that their senses and reasoning are likely to be reliable (sans God) given the things I listed and the thousand other ways for them to be faulty.
peace
We are not discussing things from the perspective of your worldview, but from faded_Glory’s perspective. That is why I said that you can’t yourself escape the faults you ascribe to his view; in his view, they apply to you as well.
In that case it’s all most certain that he is a BB and there is no way to ever know that he was not one AFAICT.
Of course.
The question however is can he trust the conclusions that flow from his view. The answer to that is obviously not.
From his view or mine
peace
And I’m waiting for someone to offer justification for air without Brahma.
Race ya!
I am waiting for five o’clock, so I can justify whiskey is tasty.
I’m waiting for someone to offer justification for that weird hump on the back of Brahman bulls
peace
Tech help please!
In the modern Wordspress’s batshit crazy block madness, how do you do the “Continue reading” thing?
Edit: I guess I found it – Layout > More.
Thanks!
Ask Brahma
Use it to store water, lump of fat per from the Oklahoma Ag workbooks,
fifthmonarchyman,
You are still not getting it. Let’s try it once more.
Imagine, if you wish, and alternative reality. In that reality there is a BB that believes he is a human being. The BB also believes in the existence of the Christian God, and he believes that he can know that he is a human being because the Christian God has revealed it to him. The question of whether we (in this reality) think such an alternative reality is possible or not is irrelevant.
The point is that the BB would think exactly the same in that reality as FMM does in this reality.
The inevitable conclusion is that there is no way to decide between this reality or that reality. Any objections that you, FMM, may present in this reality, will be precisely identical to the objections that the BB would present in that reality. It is impossible to tell them apart. You have no way to know if you are FMM as you think you are, or if you are BB-FMM as it thinks it is.
Which leaves you in the exact same position as you say I am in.
The consequences of getting it would be life-changing for FMM.
I’m reminded of a UK legal injustice that you may have heard of. Terrorists placed bombs in two Birmingham UK pubs in 1974. Six Irish men were convicted on faulty forensic evidence and forced confessions. Later they appealed and the Judge in charge turned the application down on the grounds that it was impossible to conceive that the police were lying when giving evidence.
Irish Times
Alan Fox,
I wonder if it wouldn’t be a change for the better.
Instead of basing his belief on what he thinks is cast-iron logic, he would have to base it on faith. Faith that it is true, even if it cannot be demonstrated.
I have had Christians tell me that this is a superior form of believing, more in line with what the Bible says. Eventually he might be more comfortable with that?
Better for whom and in what way, I wonder.
You need to stop right there. There is no possible reality where a BB can think
I can’t imagine an impossible reality any more than I can imagine a square circle
You don’t get it, It is oxymoronic to claim that a BB can think. It simply can’t happen
On the other hand from your perspective it is not only possible but near certain that you are a BB.
That is why your worldview is deeply flawed and self-defeating and self-contradictory .
Do you see the importance of beginning with the correct presuppositions now??
peace
NO NO NO
It’s only from the perspective of your self-contradictory worldview we are in the same position
That’s simply because any knowledge whatsoever is impossible from your worldview. Your worldview is foolish by definition and by observation
I don’t share your perspective. Knowledge is not only possible it’s actual from my perspective.
Get it now???
peace
Ironically faith is exactly what you base your belief in the reliability of your senses and reason on.
The difference is that yours is a blind faith in something that is almost certainly not true………… and it’s your very own senses and reason that tell you that…….loudly
peace
faded_Glory,
I realize that I’m asking you to think deeper than you expected to about your own presuppositions. Please give it a try. I think you will find it rewarding.
If you are unwilling or unable to do that kind of contemplation I’m more than happy to agree to disagree here and discuss some design thinking when the time comes. You seem like a nice guy
🙂
peace
This is way far afield and speculative in the extreme but there might be a way to empirically demonstrate that the materialist worldview that says brains equal minds is false
quote:
If we apply the Copernican principle to this distribution, then there is a 50% probability that AI will be created within the next five years (i.e. by 2020) and a 95% probability that AI will be created within next 15-20 years, thus it will be almost certainly created before 2035.
end quote:
If strong AI does not arrive in the next 20 years or so then perhaps we can say that I’m right and it’s impossible
check it out
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/txYsGGCvSn6MJeWDa/using-the-copernican-mediocrity-principle-to-estimate-the
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I’m happy to stop here. You will clearly never understand that you cannot use a presupposition, or the entailments of a presupposition, to prove that very same presupposition.
There is ample evidence that all knowledge gained though those two is limited and provisional. Accepting that is a practical choice. Not faith.
Jesus seemed to think the senses were something you could base a belief on , seeing did not require the same amount of faith as not seeing does. If the senses and reasoning were almost certainly untrue, that would be an odd position to take.
“Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who believe without seeing.”
If the senses are not true and what they tell you is untrue. It follows that if your senses tell you that your senses are untrue, your senses are true. Liar’s paradox.
Sure, check back in twenty years.
It doesn’t occur to you to apply that to your own position?
Would you rather be happy or right?
Haha. We got it a looooong time ago.
I am utterly flabbergasted. What in the hell are you talking about??????
I presuppose the Christian God of scripture, what possibly leads you to conclude that I am trying to prove the Christian God of scripture??????
Let me explain once again my position just in case there is any doubt.
1) I’m not trying to prove that God exists
2) There is no need to prove that God exists
3) I think that it is possibly a sin to try to prove that God exists
4) Trying to prove that God exists is like trying to prove that existence exists
5) Everyone already knows God exists
6) God’s existence is self-evident
7) No one has any reason to doubt God’s existence
8) Trying to prove God’s existence is illogical in the extreme because it makes the defendant the judge and the Judge the accused
9) There is no greater waste of time that I can think of than trying to prove that God exists
10) No one will experience wrath because they did not know God exists instead they will experience wrath for willfully rejecting the God they know exists
I hope that helps.
This discussion is not about God but about knowledge. Since God exists I can justify knowledge.
I want to know how you justify knowledge while simultaneously denying the only thing that I know of that can justify it.
peace
I am a presupositonalist.
I spend a lot of time thinking deeply about presuppositions mine included.
Most folks I talk to on the other hand have never given this stuff much thought as witnessed by the responses I sometimes get.
peace
The point is that it’s possible that the principle of mediocrity might make the possibility of Strong AI a testable scientific hypothesis rather than just a philosophical question.
What do you think about that?
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Thus speaks the Boltzmann Brain, desperate to prove it is human.
From your perspective I suppose……
That of course is why your perspective is jacked up and self defeating and self contradictory .
Your perspective of course makes it pretty much inevitable that you are a BB. Yet I would venture to wager that you find it very difficult to actually believe you are a BB. You don’t act like you believe your worldview is the correct one.
You begin by presupposing the viability of your reasoning and senses to lead to correct conclusions yet you don’t accept the conclusion that your reasoning and senses inevitably lead you to.
You don’t even dispute the conclusion that it’s very likely that given your worldview you are a BB
You just try to claim that everyone is in the same boat with you and pretend like that is OK with you.
You are driven to look for ways to poke holes in the only worldview that you yourself grant can justify knowledge.
I find all that to be utterly fascinating.
peace
I’ve been thinking and I believe an argument could be made that even granting for the sake of argument your jacked up illogical perspective a Boltzmann Brain could not presuppose the Christian God.
Are you interested in hearing it?
peace
I would. Do tell!
Are people getting tired of Bear Devolves?
I have a dilemma:
Should I do the cholesterol kill all OP?
Or should I do something more exciting, like to help Professor Lenski to design his long overdue LTEE experiment to produce something more other than broken bacteria as it was righty expected from his evolution replicate…
Or, how about this: “What question would you like to ask God”?
Or mechanical gears evolution…
Quantum Devolution?
Ok
This is all very tentative and rough and cluttered so I expect to modify it accordingly as criticism is received.
Submitted for your approval
Assuming for the sake of argument that it’s possible for BBs to think at all………
Premise 1: BB’s main personal attribute is that they are compelled to self deceive (ie they desperately want to think that they are something other than BBs)
Premise 2: Above all the Christian God promises to eliminate deception for all those who follow him
quote:
“If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
(Joh 8:31-32)
end quote;
premise 2A: If you presuppose the Christian God then you are deliberately signing up to follow him and take the red pill regardless of the consequences even to the point of sacrificing your understanding of who you are.
quote:
Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
(Mat 16:24-25)
end quote:
Conclusion: Therefore a BB would never presupose the Christian God and surrender his epistemological autonomy. Instead he would endeavor to maintain his current self-deception at all costs by presupposing his own efforts are sufficient to discover truth just up and till they lead him to conclude he is in fact a BB. Then being autonomous he will simply reject or ignore his own senses and reason in order to maintain the self-deception and go on his way.
What do you think???
peace
I believe that faded_Glory’s “jacked up illogical perspective” does not allow for this premise.
So you are saying he is constitutionally incapable of presupposing the Christian God?
Isn’t that the point?
peace
I don’t really want to carry on with this conversation, but I must point out that this is not a correct representation of my perspective.
My presupposition does not rule out the existence of the Christian God, it simply doesn’t contain it as a necessity. So the premise is allowed, but it isn’t a given.
If accepting the Christian God is impossible given his worldview but being a BB is near certain then it necessarily follows……..That given his worldview he is a BB and BB’s can’t presuppose God
Or something like that
peace
The premise is simply a statement of who the Christian God is (in part).
It is a given if we are indeed talking about the Christian God
peace
Very well. Apologies. Thanks for clarifying though.
FYI I think this idea of epistemological autonomy is a feature of every worldview that I am aware of except Christianity whether we are talking about atheism or non-Christian religion
All other worldviews except Christianity believe that enlightenment or nirvana or heaven or…. knowledge can be achieved in some measure by your own efforts If a person just does the correct things he will be able to reach his goal.
Christianity is unique AFAIK in that everything including faith is a gift from God.
quote:
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.
(Jas 1:5)
end quote:
peace
I see. I guess I misread the premise as saying that the Christian God exists, and is keeping His promise of eliminating deceptions. Very well.
Moving on:
The part between brackets seems to be true of normal observers as well. You aren’t really comfortable with the thought that you may be a Boltzmann brain, right? The “self-deception” part you simply based on (unknowable) information about the real whereabouts of the brain.
Yes, it’s a given in Calvinism at least that trusting God regardless of the consequences is just not something that can be done with out supernatural regeneration.
I don’t think being a BB would necessarily be the end of the world as long as God existed and knowledge was possible. There are folks who welcome the idea of “downloading” their consciousnesses into a computer and things like virtual reality don’t seem unbearably terrible. That is as long as knowledge and communion with God is possible.
What is different I think for a BB is that he would rather surrender the possibility of knowledge in order to maintain the illusion that he is not a BB.
Again all of this assumes for the sake of argument that BB can think. Of course you know I don’t really see how that is possible.
peace
I don’t think so.
The reason that BB imagine the world as they wish it was rather than how it actually is is about much more than the real whereabouts of the brain.
Why would BBs not just face up to the fact that they are BBs and live out their existence accordingly it’s much simpler and requires less effort I think?
I would say it’s because they desperately don’t want to acknowledge that they are in and of themselves helpless when it comes to knowing the world as it actually is.
peace
What is supernatural regeneration?
As I understand the concept, Boltzmann brains have exactly the same perceptions as normal observers do. Hence there is no more reason for a BB to surrender the possibility of knowledge than there is for normal observers.
Same here, Boltzmann brains are supposed to have exactly the same perceptions as normal observers, so no more or less desperation.
That is all part of exploring somebody else’s point of view, Fifth. Take me, I don’t see why you think that I am compelled to accept the existence of Boltzmann brains. Weird things, they are. But I am still going along for the sake of the argument.