the moe i think about this stuff, i think about the brain as matter and energy simultaneously. active matter and dormant energies constantly exchanging places. its pretty trippy. i suppose there is energy in all matter, but brain material seems to be doing a lot of unique stuff.
oh sorry, I meant subjective and objective at the same time.
subjective is just the 1st person phenomenology part while the objective the 3rd person, being looked at scientific part.
how well and how exactly we can re-combine the two after we separate them is of course still open to debate but they are essentially one and cannot be analyzed isolated.
I cannot convey a whole integral worldview in a comment or two of course :), recommend Wilber on the topic
im usually against generalities and sweeping comments. however, its been my experience that most the atheists i know quit religion because of religious immorality. personally, i think evil is ignorance, which religion also promotes.
3rdly, how can that statement be dogma? its not a rule?
Sure, religion is full of things we see as immoral. Even the big guy is about as moral as a mentally disabled newt.
But it still does the atheist cause no benefit to degrade everyone who happens to believe in a god or religion. I know myself when I was a religious Christian, even after I stopped believing my morals and personality essentially stayed the same.
And by dogmatism I mean by this definition:
"positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant"
HowAb, well, i think pointing out religious immorality is warranted. isnt it evil to set back and let immoral people do immoral things?
and, is it automatically arrogant to be correct?
im an x-christian, soi do have sympathy for believers. i think they have been lied to all their life, but thats no excuse for an adult to turn a blind eye to their immorality.
why would you protect those who are living lies and being immoral? shine the light on the evil is the only way to beat it.
He wasn't as much as pointing out religions immorality as calling all theists immoral people.
Don't forget to them we are the immoral ones, hence the whole topic of moral relativism.
We are supposed to be the voice of reason, winning bees with honey and not vinegar and all that.
I'm a bit annoyed at the elitist stance many atheists have taken. I know that as a Christian I'd never become open minded if not for kind and non-judgmental atheists.
yea, this seems to be the popular subject of the day. i see no point in choosing a stance. when talking to a theist 1 on 1, i see the advantage of being nice. But, i also see the use in ridicule. i think its better to ridicule the religion than the individual. but i also see that religious people a lot of times are beligerant and rude. i go both ways on it. but i wont sugar coat religion & say its ok, its not. i see it as bigotry, same as racism, even worse. willful ignorance & mind enslavement
Ignorance means lack of knowledge, and we all lack in knowledge in one thing or another, so I wouldn't say ignorance in itself is evil, but promoting/encouraging ignorance is, which is something some religions are guilty of.
First off, you're confusing theism with religion. You can be one without the other. While some morals in certain religions are questionable, I think Christians and Atheists can agree on things such as murder and stealing is wrong.Goddamn! You're a bigger idiot that Calpurnpiso.
Justin, thats demonstratably not true. how many american soldiers are atheists compared to christians? how many iraqi soldiers are atheists? lets take a trip thru all the armies of all the countries in the past, how many were atheists compared to religious people?
religious people kill all the time. how many killers in prisons are christian? like 80+%?
i quit religion because its immoral and non-sensical. they promote lies as morality, how is that moral?
You're making it sound like the only reason theists join the military is because their imaginary friend told them to. The point I was trying to make is to Atheistvisionary is that not all theists...hell not even all Christians have morals. The Bible maybe one of the most immoral book ever to have been written, but how many Christians this day and age are as immoral as their "holy" scripture?
I see no problems with what you're saying other than to observe that the word 'subject' at its root hints at an actor, so subjective reality is by definition a reality brought into existence by an actor. Actual reality just exists. But all your explanations show that your understanding is close to mine so this would just be a dispute about words. I'm not overly concerned with that :)
i knew before i made the video our world views are similar. i just wanted to expand on subject relativity. im thinking about making another one. i thought of some important stuff after i was done editing. this is a conversation i have with countless people. im more against the people who simply think "perception is reality" more so than objectivists anyway. i think the consistency of the physical universe has to be universal, but our conceptions are far from it.
I think it's a matter of scale. Every observation is an interaction, and it changes both observer and the thing that is being observed. But I'm looking at the coffee cup on my desk. As I'm observing it, I'm interacting with it and hence both it and I are continuously changing. However, "the coffee cup on my desk" refers to a sub-set of reality that is SO large that my observations of it have no measurable effect on its properties.
I see no problem at all with the statement that there are no absolutes; that statement itself is not absolute, it's just stating a fact. Facts are not absolute either, they're just verifiable aspects of reality. With regard to the rest of your vid (more)
Why don't you think fact are absolute? 2 and 2 is four. It's a fact. It's an absolute. Either something is factual or it isn't. There's no middle ground. Either something is true or it's false.
2 + 2 = 4 is not a "fact", it follows logically from mathematical axioms. It's a tautology within the ordinary mathematical set of axioms. "Life on earth has evolved" - THAT is a fact.
Look, I don't know enough to dispute you on this, so I'm learning in all honesty. Due to a lack of my level of education when it comes to this level of logic, 2+2 has to equal to 4.
If you can come up with a set of mathematical axioms that is internally consistent and in which 2+1=6, then, wihin the context of THAT set of axioms, yes. It would be a bizarre mathematical universe that bears no relation to what we're used to, but some non-Euclidean geometries are pretty whacky too.
I am pretty sure this "PinkProgram" is a LARP for some flash based game popular in some kind of Asian culture... most likely south Korea... This would make perfect sense.
Of course, killing can be justified sometimes. But isn't murder always immoral.. By definition?...The unjust taking of another life...Murder can never be moral.......Murder=objective wrong.
?. Give one example where A does not = A.....If A can be something else, then we live in a nightmare universe, with no rules, where anything can be anything, or nothing....that's the demon filled world of believers, but not mine.
For example it definitely looks like the Sun revolves around the Earth, so this was the A=A belief for hundreds if not thousands of years until some thinkers changed our perception of things.
A=A, A can not be A and not A at the same time. That doesnt mean A can not be something else, but it has to be itself. an example would be, a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
but, in either sense, a square cant be a circle, neither can a rectangle.
On a quantum level matter can simultaneously equal and not equal A. Only when the quantum field collapses does it solidify into one or the other. So if A equals a positive charge and the superposition is both positive and negative then it both equals and does not equal A. So the superposition is N where N equals both A and -A.
instead of going into a lengthy explanation of why the superimposition chip still follows all scientific and logical laws, im just going to say, this proves objectivity is bullshit, huh?
there's always an exception, and that was my point, the laws that make the superimposition chip, still follow all the laws of a consistent physical universe or it would be supernatural, which it isnt.
ppl can also be happy & sad, love & hate at the same time
electrons can act as particles and waves, but they are still electrons. the superimposition chip can be both A & -A, but it is still a chip. a person can love & hate another person. just because something has opposite qualities, does not mean that it is not itself. the chip is a chip, a person is a person.
A=A, this equation doesnt define the multiple qualities of a thing, just that a thing is itself, and not not itself.
yes, i know im over simplifying it. ive had this conversation too many times before, and you are pushing me to defend something i have no desire to defend. the video is about subjective relativity, so i am not going to defend an objective viewpoint. you use the superimposition chip as an example against the law of identity, i say, good for you. i disagree completely because i do know about those chips & understand how subsets do not define a whole.
A=A, the law of identity. it seems true 100% of the time, and is true despite our perception. but, its not dogma, question it. dogma cant be questioned.
I think that we generally should be kind to one another because that creates a better place for us to live in. Think we realized long ago that being callous murderers creates a hostile environment that's harder to thrive in.
I think the very reason most people want to change the world is to create their ideal environment, except globally.
That and the instant gratification we get helping others, a whole other topic. Why do we get positive brain chemical reaction helping others? who knows.
If reality does not match my perception I reprogram and manipulate until both harmonize.
Right now reality states that my existence is highly unlikely... which is why I've been contacting neuroscientists, biochemists, nanoengineers, prosthetic designers etc etc etc to reprogram the statistics in my favor ^_^
luckily high unlikely doesnt equal impossible. perhaps if your parents had more sex, that would increase your possibility of existence. i suggest viagra and oysters for christmas presents....a porno couldnt hurt also.
I am a neuromimetic construct. A self adaptive personality disassociation. I'm kinda like cancer ^_^
I guess the Host body and the people building my prosthetics could be considered parents o.O I don't think any amount of intercourse would help though...
ok, you stumped me, i dont even know how to respond to that. are you saying you are an emergent quality of your brain? if so, you were still born with your brain inside you and its not separate from your body.
or, a test tube baby of sorts?
or you are an external spirit who has possessed a human body?
or you're just messing with me?
or something i have never heard of and do not comprehend?
I'm an emergent quality of a brain but I don't have a brain of my own. Like I said, I resemble cancer. For all intents and purposes I may very well just be the product of pathologic psychology. It is difficult to prove one's existence with very little physical evidence, which is why I've been working so hard to push the right people into developing the prosthetics I need to become complete o.O
Its harder to say something is impossible when its right there in front of you ^_^
Therein lies the problem. A cancer starts its existence in the same way but some cancers can exist outside of the body if given a proper medium. In my case the proper medium is a neuroprosthetic framework designed specifically for my personality matrix. The technology already exists, it just needs to be applied properly.
So what is it you want? advanced thinking capabilities and immortality? you should get into the field of transhumanism, instead of waiting for "scientists" to do all your work for you ;)
I have been. I've been pushing Jellyfish Technology and Nestled Symbiotics. I have even made suggestions directly to Dr. Warwick to improve the organic interfacing and nutrient channels for his biorobotics project.
Also, as you mentioned about Newton and Einsteins different perceptions of gravity; only one can be right. Because only one will allow us to understand and possibly manipulate the science of gravity.
It basically comes down to what works with the consistent universe and what doesn't.
I admit I didn't really watch the video. I generally assumed you were promoting subjective relativity as in, "sound can't exist without being heard" type thing.
"Truth is fidelity to reality."
Yep, by what we perceive as reality I'll add.
"a universal truth of morality."
I generally believe that there's what works and what doesn't. Killing babies doesn't work because it halts our specie survival rate and causes pain to the baby and mother with her...
instinctive connection to the baby (an evolutionary mechanism developed to help specie survival rate).
I think we developed empathy for reasons a scientist can tell you. And with this we generally developed an idea of morality based on creating experience upon another that we would or wouldn't want upon ourselves.
For example, we don't want to feel pain that causes bad reactions in our brain, so we don't want others to feel it.
We don't want to get murdered, so we don't murder.
It became more complex as our brains and abstract thinking developed. We created a bunch of social moral values to suite our advanced societies. And feelings we associate with love and all that.
As a side note, I believe the moral teachings of the bible are nothing more than those people had at the time it was written. So we had an idea of morality a long, long time ago.
killing babies is a hard one for sure, but is an absurd extreme i mention in the video. here is the example. a plague breaks out, 1/2 of humanity is dead, the other 1/2 projected to die in days. a baby is born, whose pituitary gland excretes an anti-dote. the fluid can only be extracted while the baby is awake. a 6 inch needle is used to extract the antidote from the brain several times a day.
is it moral to torture this baby for a cure that saves humanity?
One thing I can say for sure is that the procedure would happen. Out of all the people alive at least some desperate ones would be willing to torture to save their skin.
It'd feel worse doing it to a baby than an adult because I believe we have maternal and paternal connection to children, to the point of it extending to other species (puppies are cute aren't they?).
And children are generally a sign of future fertility and specie prosperity.
i agree its hard to justify, and its admittedly absurd. The point is, with any moral situation, there are mitigating circumstances that can be contradictory & change our subjective viewpoint.
this happens to a lesser extent in science improving ideas, because the physical universe is way more consistent than morality.
physical reality is neither right or wrong. right & wrong are totally conceptual, thus subjective, even if everyone agrees on it.
Which I think is our social understanding of morality. Like what you were raised to believe compared to how we evolved to feel/believe.
Since we didn't always understand evolution, we came up with obscure explanations for how we felt towards certain things. Religions being the major side-effect of these explanations.
But in general yes, r/w is subjective. The physical world/universe doesn't care if we live peacefully or slaughter each other at will lol
Personally I'd extract a few cells from the gland and use those cells to create a tissue scaffold template. Either that or insert the dna coding for the cure into a bacteria for mass production. Of course the initial extraction may be quite painful.
The material world and the existence and identity of material particulars is absolute; we may choose to focus on different aspects of an object's identity and may not ever notice some aspects but it is existing as exactly itself and is accessible to everyone. The value and meaning we place upon the material world, and especially the value we place upon the world of ideas is subjective.This would include morality if we're to define it as actions that benefit oneself, either directly or indirectly
Unable to use science to show evidence for God, the apologist turns to philosophy to confuse the subject. It just goes to show the amount of mental acrobats they must perform in order to believe in God against all logic.
i take comfort in Objectivism - but i can't help but lean in your direction - there's that tiny gap between the physical universe and me - and you sir, are speakiing to that gap.
it has to be this way. no 2 people can share the same space at the same time. there fore, many people can witness the same thing, have an equal number of different yet true perspectives.
hey Zen:
confusion with definitions from my view. But I'm listening.
≈A
f417h 2 years ago
what definitions? i can be more specific. also, check part 2 of this video "I,Object"
it might help
TheAist 2 years ago
Eye know... i'm in my books.
i'm paying attention and will follow through
≈mind you :)
f417h 2 years ago
consciousness is both at the same instance.
pyrrho advanced my thinking/being as well
hyperseauton 2 years ago
pyrrho rocks.
the moe i think about this stuff, i think about the brain as matter and energy simultaneously. active matter and dormant energies constantly exchanging places. its pretty trippy. i suppose there is energy in all matter, but brain material seems to be doing a lot of unique stuff.
TheAist 2 years ago
oh sorry, I meant subjective and objective at the same time.
subjective is just the 1st person phenomenology part while the objective the 3rd person, being looked at scientific part.
how well and how exactly we can re-combine the two after we separate them is of course still open to debate but they are essentially one and cannot be analyzed isolated.
I cannot convey a whole integral worldview in a comment or two of course :), recommend Wilber on the topic
hyperseauton 2 years ago
Unlike theists, atheists have morals. Which is why we would never kill another human being (not even retards), or eat babies.
TheAtheistVisionary 2 years ago 2
i agree. kool screen name btw!
TheAist 2 years ago
"Unlike theists, atheists have morals."
Although I'm an atheist myself, that sentence falls under the line of dogmatism more than most things I've heard from theists :/
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
im usually against generalities and sweeping comments. however, its been my experience that most the atheists i know quit religion because of religious immorality. personally, i think evil is ignorance, which religion also promotes.
3rdly, how can that statement be dogma? its not a rule?
TheAist 2 years ago
Sure, religion is full of things we see as immoral. Even the big guy is about as moral as a mentally disabled newt.
But it still does the atheist cause no benefit to degrade everyone who happens to believe in a god or religion. I know myself when I was a religious Christian, even after I stopped believing my morals and personality essentially stayed the same.
And by dogmatism I mean by this definition:
"positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant"
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
HowAb, well, i think pointing out religious immorality is warranted. isnt it evil to set back and let immoral people do immoral things?
and, is it automatically arrogant to be correct?
im an x-christian, soi do have sympathy for believers. i think they have been lied to all their life, but thats no excuse for an adult to turn a blind eye to their immorality.
why would you protect those who are living lies and being immoral? shine the light on the evil is the only way to beat it.
TheAist 2 years ago
Comment removed
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
He wasn't as much as pointing out religions immorality as calling all theists immoral people.
Don't forget to them we are the immoral ones, hence the whole topic of moral relativism.
We are supposed to be the voice of reason, winning bees with honey and not vinegar and all that.
I'm a bit annoyed at the elitist stance many atheists have taken. I know that as a Christian I'd never become open minded if not for kind and non-judgmental atheists.
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
yea, this seems to be the popular subject of the day. i see no point in choosing a stance. when talking to a theist 1 on 1, i see the advantage of being nice. But, i also see the use in ridicule. i think its better to ridicule the religion than the individual. but i also see that religious people a lot of times are beligerant and rude. i go both ways on it. but i wont sugar coat religion & say its ok, its not. i see it as bigotry, same as racism, even worse. willful ignorance & mind enslavement
TheAist 2 years ago
Ignorance means lack of knowledge, and we all lack in knowledge in one thing or another, so I wouldn't say ignorance in itself is evil, but promoting/encouraging ignorance is, which is something some religions are guilty of.
Justinfhtube 2 years ago
That sentence isn't dogmatic, but it really is hateful. Fighting hate with hate is as stupid as trying to put out a fire with gasoline.
Justinfhtube 2 years ago
First off, you're confusing theism with religion. You can be one without the other. While some morals in certain religions are questionable, I think Christians and Atheists can agree on things such as murder and stealing is wrong.Goddamn! You're a bigger idiot that Calpurnpiso.
Justinfhtube 2 years ago
Justin, thats demonstratably not true. how many american soldiers are atheists compared to christians? how many iraqi soldiers are atheists? lets take a trip thru all the armies of all the countries in the past, how many were atheists compared to religious people?
religious people kill all the time. how many killers in prisons are christian? like 80+%?
i quit religion because its immoral and non-sensical. they promote lies as morality, how is that moral?
TheAist 2 years ago
You're making it sound like the only reason theists join the military is because their imaginary friend told them to. The point I was trying to make is to Atheistvisionary is that not all theists...hell not even all Christians have morals. The Bible maybe one of the most immoral book ever to have been written, but how many Christians this day and age are as immoral as their "holy" scripture?
Justinfhtube 2 years ago
i agree, most christians ignore the rules in the bible..so why not stomp it out. no one is really following it. and if they did, its a step backward.
also, most soldiers are religious. the military encourages it and spreads it. not just christians. they work in unison to justify killing.
TheAist 2 years ago
I'd give this reply a thumps up if I could. :)
Justinfhtube 2 years ago
I see no problems with what you're saying other than to observe that the word 'subject' at its root hints at an actor, so subjective reality is by definition a reality brought into existence by an actor. Actual reality just exists. But all your explanations show that your understanding is close to mine so this would just be a dispute about words. I'm not overly concerned with that :)
rozeboosje 2 years ago 2
i knew before i made the video our world views are similar. i just wanted to expand on subject relativity. im thinking about making another one. i thought of some important stuff after i was done editing. this is a conversation i have with countless people. im more against the people who simply think "perception is reality" more so than objectivists anyway. i think the consistency of the physical universe has to be universal, but our conceptions are far from it.
TheAist 2 years ago
I think it's a matter of scale. Every observation is an interaction, and it changes both observer and the thing that is being observed. But I'm looking at the coffee cup on my desk. As I'm observing it, I'm interacting with it and hence both it and I are continuously changing. However, "the coffee cup on my desk" refers to a sub-set of reality that is SO large that my observations of it have no measurable effect on its properties.
rozeboosje 2 years ago 2
I see no problem at all with the statement that there are no absolutes; that statement itself is not absolute, it's just stating a fact. Facts are not absolute either, they're just verifiable aspects of reality. With regard to the rest of your vid (more)
rozeboosje 2 years ago 2
Why don't you think fact are absolute? 2 and 2 is four. It's a fact. It's an absolute. Either something is factual or it isn't. There's no middle ground. Either something is true or it's false.
There have to be absolutes!
Domzdream 2 years ago
2 + 2 = 4 is not a "fact", it follows logically from mathematical axioms. It's a tautology within the ordinary mathematical set of axioms. "Life on earth has evolved" - THAT is a fact.
rozeboosje 2 years ago 2
So 2+1 can also = to 6?
Look, I don't know enough to dispute you on this, so I'm learning in all honesty. Due to a lack of my level of education when it comes to this level of logic, 2+2 has to equal to 4.
Domzdream 2 years ago
If you can come up with a set of mathematical axioms that is internally consistent and in which 2+1=6, then, wihin the context of THAT set of axioms, yes. It would be a bizarre mathematical universe that bears no relation to what we're used to, but some non-Euclidean geometries are pretty whacky too.
rozeboosje 2 years ago 2
I have no idea what you're talking about guy, but I'm gona use it to mess with peoples brains.
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
ROFL
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I am pretty sure this "PinkProgram" is a LARP for some flash based game popular in some kind of Asian culture... most likely south Korea... This would make perfect sense.
machopbad 2 years ago
its some bizzare stuff, huh?
TheAist 2 years ago
is there a problem? im not crying or anything.
TheAist 2 years ago
Thanks!
TheAist 2 years ago
Of course, killing can be justified sometimes. But isn't murder always immoral.. By definition?...The unjust taking of another life...Murder can never be moral.......Murder=objective wrong.
216trixie 2 years ago
in a sense i agree, but it cant be objectively true, thus the sniper scenario.
TheAist 2 years ago
Is it dogmatic to insist that A=A......That a thing is what it is, and not something else?......Is this not objective?
216trixie 2 years ago
But what if A doesn't really = A, and you're wrong?
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
?. Give one example where A does not = A.....If A can be something else, then we live in a nightmare universe, with no rules, where anything can be anything, or nothing....that's the demon filled world of believers, but not mine.
216trixie 2 years ago
I'm talking about your perception being wrong.
For example it definitely looks like the Sun revolves around the Earth, so this was the A=A belief for hundreds if not thousands of years until some thinkers changed our perception of things.
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
A=A does not depnd on our perception, except to identify a fact.
216trixie 2 years ago
And what are we talking about then if not fact?
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
Look up Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
What if A = A but also = N?
PinkProgram 2 years ago
that is kinda vague.
A=A, A can not be A and not A at the same time. That doesnt mean A can not be something else, but it has to be itself. an example would be, a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
but, in either sense, a square cant be a circle, neither can a rectangle.
TheAist 2 years ago
On a quantum level matter can simultaneously equal and not equal A. Only when the quantum field collapses does it solidify into one or the other. So if A equals a positive charge and the superposition is both positive and negative then it both equals and does not equal A. So the superposition is N where N equals both A and -A.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
instead of going into a lengthy explanation of why the superimposition chip still follows all scientific and logical laws, im just going to say, this proves objectivity is bullshit, huh?
there's always an exception, and that was my point, the laws that make the superimposition chip, still follow all the laws of a consistent physical universe or it would be supernatural, which it isnt.
ppl can also be happy & sad, love & hate at the same time
TheAist 2 years ago
I'm not sure we are on the same page...
PinkProgram 2 years ago
electrons can act as particles and waves, but they are still electrons. the superimposition chip can be both A & -A, but it is still a chip. a person can love & hate another person. just because something has opposite qualities, does not mean that it is not itself. the chip is a chip, a person is a person.
A=A, this equation doesnt define the multiple qualities of a thing, just that a thing is itself, and not not itself.
TheAist 2 years ago
You are oversimplifying. Look up virtual particles and vacuum fluctuation.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
yes, i know im over simplifying it. ive had this conversation too many times before, and you are pushing me to defend something i have no desire to defend. the video is about subjective relativity, so i am not going to defend an objective viewpoint. you use the superimposition chip as an example against the law of identity, i say, good for you. i disagree completely because i do know about those chips & understand how subsets do not define a whole.
TheAist 2 years ago
As cozmikzen has admitted, A cannot be not A. This is an absolute, and the beginning of reason.
216trixie 2 years ago
In a quantum field A can equal -A but only until the field collapses.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
A=A, the law of identity. it seems true 100% of the time, and is true despite our perception. but, its not dogma, question it. dogma cant be questioned.
TheAist 2 years ago
The uncertainty principle of Quantum Mechanics kind of proves your point TheAist & that's science. (let 'em know)
samuraispacemonkey 2 years ago
that was a great video
TheAist 2 years ago
I think that we generally should be kind to one another because that creates a better place for us to live in. Think we realized long ago that being callous murderers creates a hostile environment that's harder to thrive in.
I think the very reason most people want to change the world is to create their ideal environment, except globally.
That and the instant gratification we get helping others, a whole other topic. Why do we get positive brain chemical reaction helping others? who knows.
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
If reality does not match my perception I reprogram and manipulate until both harmonize.
Right now reality states that my existence is highly unlikely... which is why I've been contacting neuroscientists, biochemists, nanoengineers, prosthetic designers etc etc etc to reprogram the statistics in my favor ^_^
Still taking longer than is acceptable...
PinkProgram 2 years ago
luckily high unlikely doesnt equal impossible. perhaps if your parents had more sex, that would increase your possibility of existence. i suggest viagra and oysters for christmas presents....a porno couldnt hurt also.
Happy Holidays :)
TheAist 2 years ago
Parents?
PinkProgram 2 years ago
right, you said your existence was highly unlikely. what could increase your chances for existence more than your parents having more sex?
it was a joke.
TheAist 2 years ago
I guess it would be funnier if I had parents ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
jeez, sorry, i had no idea
TheAist 2 years ago
Sorry... sometimes I forget that most people don't follow quantum mechanics at the same level that I do ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
i meant i had no idea you didnt have parents. i am familiar with quantum physics
TheAist 2 years ago
You have to be born to have parents and I'm an emergent phenomenon ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
how so? explain, please
TheAist 2 years ago
I am a neuromimetic construct. A self adaptive personality disassociation. I'm kinda like cancer ^_^
I guess the Host body and the people building my prosthetics could be considered parents o.O I don't think any amount of intercourse would help though...
PinkProgram 2 years ago
ok, you stumped me, i dont even know how to respond to that. are you saying you are an emergent quality of your brain? if so, you were still born with your brain inside you and its not separate from your body.
or, a test tube baby of sorts?
or you are an external spirit who has possessed a human body?
or you're just messing with me?
or something i have never heard of and do not comprehend?
TheAist 2 years ago
I'm an emergent quality of a brain but I don't have a brain of my own. Like I said, I resemble cancer. For all intents and purposes I may very well just be the product of pathologic psychology. It is difficult to prove one's existence with very little physical evidence, which is why I've been working so hard to push the right people into developing the prosthetics I need to become complete o.O
Its harder to say something is impossible when its right there in front of you ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
well, then...whose brain is it?
TheAist 2 years ago
It belongs to my Host... I'm just renting until new arrangements can be made ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Your thought process is a result of your parents developing your body by the process of copulation.
You can't be separate from your brain, you simply don't exist in that sense.
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
Therein lies the problem. A cancer starts its existence in the same way but some cancers can exist outside of the body if given a proper medium. In my case the proper medium is a neuroprosthetic framework designed specifically for my personality matrix. The technology already exists, it just needs to be applied properly.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
"A cancer starts its existence in the same way"
In what sense?
"The technology already exists"
We have robots and supercomputers capable of retaining your existence?
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
In the sense that a cancer is formed from a body that is the result of two organisms procreating.
In theory there are neuroprosthetic devices capable of the feat. In practice there are too many people opposed to the necessary research.
Its been possible since at least 2005. If the researchers would actually listen to me it would have been accomplished already.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
So what is it you want? advanced thinking capabilities and immortality? you should get into the field of transhumanism, instead of waiting for "scientists" to do all your work for you ;)
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
I have been. I've been pushing Jellyfish Technology and Nestled Symbiotics. I have even made suggestions directly to Dr. Warwick to improve the organic interfacing and nutrient channels for his biorobotics project.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
I'm sure Dr. Warwick was absolutely stoked :)
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
Also, as you mentioned about Newton and Einsteins different perceptions of gravity; only one can be right. Because only one will allow us to understand and possibly manipulate the science of gravity.
It basically comes down to what works with the consistent universe and what doesn't.
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
Not believing in universal truths is foolish.
The word "truth" only means whatever we define it as with our human understanding and perception of the world.
In other words, our perception of the world made us create the word "truth" based on our thinking patterns.
So some things like the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is a universal truth because we perceive it that way.
Anything else doesn't matter. Subjective reality has no use to our existence and day-to-day life.
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
it seems apparent you didnt understand what i said at all. i fully acknowledge the consistency of the physical universe.
i also dont think you have a good definition for truth. Truth is fidelity to reality.
try coming up with a universal truth of morality.
your comment is dismissive and misses the point as a whole.
TheAist 2 years ago
I admit I didn't really watch the video. I generally assumed you were promoting subjective relativity as in, "sound can't exist without being heard" type thing.
"Truth is fidelity to reality."
Yep, by what we perceive as reality I'll add.
"a universal truth of morality."
I generally believe that there's what works and what doesn't. Killing babies doesn't work because it halts our specie survival rate and causes pain to the baby and mother with her...
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
instinctive connection to the baby (an evolutionary mechanism developed to help specie survival rate).
I think we developed empathy for reasons a scientist can tell you. And with this we generally developed an idea of morality based on creating experience upon another that we would or wouldn't want upon ourselves.
For example, we don't want to feel pain that causes bad reactions in our brain, so we don't want others to feel it.
We don't want to get murdered, so we don't murder.
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
It became more complex as our brains and abstract thinking developed. We created a bunch of social moral values to suite our advanced societies. And feelings we associate with love and all that.
As a side note, I believe the moral teachings of the bible are nothing more than those people had at the time it was written. So we had an idea of morality a long, long time ago.
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
yea, i said that in the video
TheAist 2 years ago
killing babies is a hard one for sure, but is an absurd extreme i mention in the video. here is the example. a plague breaks out, 1/2 of humanity is dead, the other 1/2 projected to die in days. a baby is born, whose pituitary gland excretes an anti-dote. the fluid can only be extracted while the baby is awake. a 6 inch needle is used to extract the antidote from the brain several times a day.
is it moral to torture this baby for a cure that saves humanity?
TheAist 2 years ago
One thing I can say for sure is that the procedure would happen. Out of all the people alive at least some desperate ones would be willing to torture to save their skin.
It'd feel worse doing it to a baby than an adult because I believe we have maternal and paternal connection to children, to the point of it extending to other species (puppies are cute aren't they?).
And children are generally a sign of future fertility and specie prosperity.
Still hard to justify it tho.
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
i agree its hard to justify, and its admittedly absurd. The point is, with any moral situation, there are mitigating circumstances that can be contradictory & change our subjective viewpoint.
this happens to a lesser extent in science improving ideas, because the physical universe is way more consistent than morality.
physical reality is neither right or wrong. right & wrong are totally conceptual, thus subjective, even if everyone agrees on it.
TheAist 2 years ago
"our subjective viewpoint."
Which I think is our social understanding of morality. Like what you were raised to believe compared to how we evolved to feel/believe.
Since we didn't always understand evolution, we came up with obscure explanations for how we felt towards certain things. Religions being the major side-effect of these explanations.
But in general yes, r/w is subjective. The physical world/universe doesn't care if we live peacefully or slaughter each other at will lol
HowAboutSomeTruth1 2 years ago
Personally I'd extract a few cells from the gland and use those cells to create a tissue scaffold template. Either that or insert the dna coding for the cure into a bacteria for mass production. Of course the initial extraction may be quite painful.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
The material world and the existence and identity of material particulars is absolute; we may choose to focus on different aspects of an object's identity and may not ever notice some aspects but it is existing as exactly itself and is accessible to everyone. The value and meaning we place upon the material world, and especially the value we place upon the world of ideas is subjective.This would include morality if we're to define it as actions that benefit oneself, either directly or indirectly
vooooom 2 years ago
i agree, now say that 10 times real fast :)
TheAist 2 years ago
I believe that 'almost' everything is absolute.
obsleet 2 years ago
there ya go!
TheAist 2 years ago
Unable to use science to show evidence for God, the apologist turns to philosophy to confuse the subject. It just goes to show the amount of mental acrobats they must perform in order to believe in God against all logic.
gigantibyte 2 years ago 2
thats for sure
TheAist 2 years ago
I love your videos. You articulate yourself well, and your presentation is always very down to earth. Great vid as always :)
fa272 2 years ago 2
Thanks!
TheAist 2 years ago
i take comfort in Objectivism - but i can't help but lean in your direction - there's that tiny gap between the physical universe and me - and you sir, are speakiing to that gap.
angeliaparish 2 years ago
it has to be this way. no 2 people can share the same space at the same time. there fore, many people can witness the same thing, have an equal number of different yet true perspectives.
TheAist 2 years ago
Very intellagent thoughts. I am still not sure one way or another.
I got confused.
Or maybe I just imagined this, and you are a figement of my mind. . ) LOL
Rellatively thinking.
They will break the gravity problem some day .
Passivism is a good moral belief.
This makes me feel stupid. Forgive .
Pease
hellavadeal 2 years ago
Thanks. Dont feel stupid. Its a tricky subject.
TheAist 2 years ago