Poll: The Experience Machine.

[DeltaEdge]

I would definitely plug in, without a doubt, provided that I don't have any dependents. If I had a wife and children, or people who otherwise truly needed me though, then I don't think I would be able to go in, unless I convinced them to also plug in. Even though I have no personal qualms about going in, if people are dependent on me, then I can't rightfully abandon them just for my own happiness, especially if I am the one who reached out to them, or made promises to them and chose to take on the responsibility of caring for them or helping them.

But yeah, assuming that I have no dependents, I say plug me in! Just the fact that this is "Real"(As far as we know anyways) isn't enough to keep me tethered here, provided that there is an option for a happier and more fulfilling life. And plus, that would become my new reality. I think that our reality is heavily based on perception, and like someone said earlier in the thread, that this current reality could all just be someone's imagination or creation, but if that was the case, would this reality suddenly become completely invalid to you just because it is part of someone else's creation? Would that change all of the experiences you've had and suddenly invalidate them, or make them weigh any less on your heart just because someone told you that this existence was fabricated? No, I don't think it would. And I think the same would be applicable to the alternate reality that you would experience whilst plugged in. In there, I would continue to build connections with others, and these feelings would carry all the weight that comes with the connections that we make in this reality, because my perception is what gives weight to these connections, not the rules in which they exist.

 

[spartan231490]

What's the fucking point? Congratulations, you're happy. You also accomplished nothing with your small pathetic life and no one will remember you or care that you're gone.

What's the point of accomplishing anything or anyone caring that you are gone?

changing the world, leaving a mark, achieving immortality . . . god forbid maybe . . . i don't know . . . making someone else's life better.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Oh hell yes. No offense reality, but you kind of suck.

 

[Arakasi]

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not a Social Darwinist, at least not as it is understood.

I agree that evolution is not a sentient thing with intelligent designs for all lifeforms, I didn't think I implied that. But it has so very much to do with psychology, sociology, philosophy and ethics. Humans are machines, so evolution created how the brain works, which includes all of psychology, sociology, and ethics. Of course I'm not saying that nurture plays no role, it's just that it was more successful to allow for nurture to change some things in our psychology to allow for greater adaptability.

This argument is difficult, it taps into the core of people's emotions and unchallenged assumptions which is frankly dangerous territory. I do not support a kind of society that exploits the weak, or simply does nothing while they starve, I support a society in which anyone is free to do as they wish provided it does not harm another. I guess I really don't have to worry about the future of the human race, because I simply don't care as I don't have any stakes in it, but it is an interesting discussion. If I were to have stakes in the future in the human race I would want it to improve human happiness, that would be the endgoal, and I don't think society provides for that as it is, we aren't improving, we are stagnating.

The reason I stated you might consider evolution as a sentient thing with intelligent designs is because you keep speaking of it as if it was a person ("evolution wants..." and "evolution created..." and so on and so forth).

Personally, I believe that necessity is not the be all and end all of something. Those fields need biology to exist (as our minds need brains to exist), but that doesn't mean we are constrained by them. Though you are quite right, it does stray into personal beliefs that are, in the end, under no obligation to align. I respect your beliefs and would not try to change them, even if I heartily disagree.

Please, if you think someone is wrong, especially me, try to change their beliefs. Ignorance is not bliss, tolerance is condescending, respecting beliefs that are wrong is wrong.

As for how I talk about evolution, it is just an easier way of talking about it without clarifying everytime I mention it that it is a blind process. I figured you'd get what I meant, I'll be more careful next time.

I'm getting a vibe from that second last paragraph that you believe in something akin to free will?

 

[Arakasi]

What's the fucking point? Congratulations, you're happy. You also accomplished nothing with your small pathetic life and no one will remember you or care that you're gone.

What's the point of accomplishing anything or anyone caring that you are gone?

changing the world, leaving a mark, achieving immortality . . . god forbid maybe . . . i don't know . . . making someone else's life better.

By what standard do you make someone's life better? Do you make them more happy? But you said that happiness is pointless, so why make anyone else happy?

Why is being remembered a good thing? Hitler is remembered(/Godwined). Why have immortality if you aren't there to experience it? By what standard is that immortality?

 

[Darken12]

Please, if you think someone is wrong, especially me, try to change their beliefs. Ignorance is not bliss, tolerance is condescending, respecting beliefs that are wrong is wrong.

As for how I talk about evolution, it is just an easier way of talking about it without clarifying everytime I mention it that it is a blind process. I figured you'd get what I meant, I'll be more careful next time.

I'm getting a vibe from that second last paragraph that you believe in something akin to free will?

Oh, I completely disagree. No opinion is right or wrong, and my opinion is no more valid than yours. You have every right to believe whatever you want to believe and I consider it impolite to force my opinion on others. I aim to educate instead, to offer information and options to others, and with that they may do as they please. If I explain something to another person and they continue thinking the same way, oh well. I did my best.

No, I do get what you mean, I merely have a high distrust of the term, since a lot of people treat evolution and biology with the same reverence others speak of God or whatever deity they believe in. As a scientist, I can assure you that reverence for science is actually counter-productive for scientific advancement. Science must be constantly tested, questioned and examined. Its every premise must be handled with extreme care, and any social measure taken based on it must be carefully considered, since science has often had to admit it had things wrong, and we are discovering new things every day that shed more light on previous murky subjects, or that show us a new interpretation of previous assumptions we made.

I most definitely believe in free will. The second I stop believing in free will is the second I start planning my imminent suicide, no hyperbole, as it is the moment life is no longer worth living. To me, the idea that we are nothing but molecules randomly bouncing in space (and not under the design of Fate, Destiny, God or its equivalent) is exactly what proves free will to me. My thoughts do not exist in the concrete world. They do not have physical form. Therefore, while they might depend on the integrity of my brain in order to exist, they are not influenced by the concrete world itself. On the contrary, my thoughts have the extremely limited and conditional capacity to influence the concrete world (by controlling voluntary actions). That, to me, guarantees the existence of free will. A world without free will is a nightmare for me to contemplate. A never-ending state of suffering from which there is no escape, no chance of improvement, no reprieve, no hope. I would choose death over that world in a heartbeat.

 

[Brainpaint]

Whether it was designed by humans or something designed by humans, it would still be imperfect.

And I wouldn't be truly happy. Considering I'd know that I'm not really living life.

The eternal happy place machine, actually kind of makes me sad.

The idea of HEAVEN would depress me. Even if I wholeheartedly believed in it's existence.

What's the point of doing anything if you're going to be happy whether you do it or not?

 

[Arakasi]

Please, if you think someone is wrong, especially me, try to change their beliefs. Ignorance is not bliss, tolerance is condescending, respecting beliefs that are wrong is wrong.

As for how I talk about evolution, it is just an easier way of talking about it without clarifying everytime I mention it that it is a blind process. I figured you'd get what I meant, I'll be more careful next time.

I'm getting a vibe from that second last paragraph that you believe in something akin to free will?

Oh, I completely disagree. No opinion is right or wrong, and my opinion is no more valid than yours. You have every right to believe whatever you want to believe and I consider it impolite to force my opinion on others. I aim to educate instead, to offer information and options to others, and with that they may do as they please. If I explain something to another person and they continue thinking the same way, oh well. I did my best.

Thing is that facts are not opinion. Logic is not opinion. 'Respect' is a term used by the wrong and the ignorant to continue spreading their backwards beliefs to others without being challenged.

No, I do get what you mean, I merely have a high distrust of the term, since a lot of people treat evolution and biology with the same reverence others speak of God or whatever deity they believe in. As a scientist, I can assure you that reverence for science is actually counter-productive for scientific advancement. Science must be constantly tested, questioned and examined. Its every premise must be handled with extreme care, and any social measure taken based on it must be carefully considered, since science has often had to admit it had things wrong, and we are discovering new things every day that shed more light on previous murky subjects, or that show us a new interpretation of previous assumptions we made.

I agree, it is the basis for science to challenge it. Though evolution as it stands is one of the strongest theories in science to date, as far as evidence goes.

I most definitely believe in free will. The second I stop believing in free will is the second I start planning my imminent suicide, no hyperbole, as it is the moment life is no longer worth living. To me, the idea that we are nothing but molecules randomly bouncing in space (and not under the design of Fate, Destiny, God or its equivalent) is exactly what proves free will to me. My thoughts do not exist in the concrete world. They do not have physical form. Therefore, while they might depend on the integrity of my brain in order to exist, they are not influenced by the concrete world itself. On the contrary, my thoughts have the extremely limited and conditional capacity to influence the concrete world (by controlling voluntary actions). That, to me, guarantees the existence of free will. A world without free will is a nightmare for me to contemplate. A never-ending state of suffering from which there is no escape, no chance of improvement, no reprieve, no hope. I would choose death over that world in a heartbeat.

Not that I want to convince you to commit suicide, but you're wrong.

Either the universe is causally determined (Determinism) or it is at least partially random with a mix of causality (indeterminism). Neither of these views account for something so abstract as 'free will', either the molecules that make up your brain are entirely determined or partially random. The mind is not seperate from the brain, it is the brain, the mind is an illusion.



Here's a couple of convincing quotes on the matter:

Spoiler

?Take a moment to think about the context in which your next decision will occur: You did not pick your parents or the time and place of your birth. You didn't choose your gender or most of your life experiences. You had no control whatsoever over your genome or the development of your brain. And now your brain is making choices on the basis of preferences and beliefs that have been hammered into it over a lifetime - by your genes, your physical development since the moment you were conceived, and the interactions you have had with other people, events, and ideas. Where is the freedom in this? Yes, you are free to do what you want even now. But where did your desires come from??

?Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? We might think that a chimpanzee is exercising free will when it chooses to chomp on a banana, or a cat when it rips up your sofa, but what about the roundworm called Caenorhabditis elegans?a simple creature made of only 959 cells? It probably never thinks, ?That was damn tasty bacteria I got to dine on back there,? yet it too has a definite preference in food and will either settle for an unattractive meal or go foraging for something better, depending on recent experience. Is that the exercise of free will?

Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.?

 

[Darken12]

Thing is that facts are not opinion. Logic is not opinion. 'Respect' is a term used by the wrong and the ignorant to continue spreading their backwards beliefs to others without being challenged.

That is correct: facts are not opinions. Opinions are not facts. And a belief is an opinion, not a fact. You do not believe in facts, as facts do not necessitate belief at all. You either accept them or not. You cannot believe in gravity or the solidity of the floor. You either accept those facts, or you don't. Opinions, on the other hand, are not facts and therefore cannot be subject to logic (because they can neither be true nor false, and logic necessitates that the premises or axioms it processes have the capacity to be true or false).

As for the bit about respect, we will have to agree to disagree. Though I understand where you're coming from, if you don't believe in free will. I do, so I cannot share your views on that regard.

I agree, it is the basis for science to challenge it. Though evolution as it stands is one of the strongest theories in science to date, as far as evidence goes.

Yes, and on its own, it is completely meaningless. Evolution has no purpose. It is a name we give to a process that is random and devoid of direction. To base your life and ethics around such a process is much like becoming an arsonist because you have chosen the process of combustion as your guide, or becoming a murderer and destroyer because you follow the process of entropy as your guide.

I won't criticise it, but I wanted to give you some perspective on how it sounds like to an external observer.

Not that I want to convince you to commit suicide, but you're wrong.

Either the universe is causally determined (Determinism) or it is at least partially random with a mix of causality (indeterminism). Neither of these views account for something so abstract as 'free will', either the molecules that make up your brain are entirely determined or partially random. The mind is not seperate from the brain, it is the brain, the mind is an illusion.

The problem with determinism is that it presupposes that the outcome to every event has already been decided. And my question is: by whom? No atheist/agnostic determinist has ever been able to give me an answer for that other than "I don't know."

Also, those are not the only theories regarding free will. Take a look here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will], there are certainly many more theories besides determinism and indeterminism. I'm a libertarianist, for example.

Here's a couple of convincing quotes on the matter:

Spoiler

?Take a moment to think about the context in which your next decision will occur: You did not pick your parents or the time and place of your birth. You didn't choose your gender or most of your life experiences. You had no control whatsoever over your genome or the development of your brain. And now your brain is making choices on the basis of preferences and beliefs that have been hammered into it over a lifetime - by your genes, your physical development since the moment you were conceived, and the interactions you have had with other people, events, and ideas. Where is the freedom in this? Yes, you are free to do what you want even now. But where did your desires come from??

?Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? We might think that a chimpanzee is exercising free will when it chooses to chomp on a banana, or a cat when it rips up your sofa, but what about the roundworm called Caenorhabditis elegans?a simple creature made of only 959 cells? It probably never thinks, ?That was damn tasty bacteria I got to dine on back there,? yet it too has a definite preference in food and will either settle for an unattractive meal or go foraging for something better, depending on recent experience. Is that the exercise of free will?

Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.?

All quite adorable quotes, but they are all based on speculation and hypotheticals. Their beliefs are neither right nor wrong- and they wouldn't be mere beliefs if we had any evidence to prove them (which also goes for this whole debate; we wouldn't be having it if there was any real evidence one way or another).

I am personally quite content to continue believing what I want, and letting others do the same. After all, that is the very essence of free will. That they believe in the absence of free will while I remain unconvinced is a reaffirmation of my beliefs (in my eyes). The coexistence of two opposite beliefs does not mean that one of them is right and the other is wrong, it further proves that beliefs are subjective and therefore cannot be neither right nor wrong.

 

[spartan231490]

What's the fucking point? Congratulations, you're happy. You also accomplished nothing with your small pathetic life and no one will remember you or care that you're gone.

What's the point of accomplishing anything or anyone caring that you are gone?

changing the world, leaving a mark, achieving immortality . . . god forbid maybe . . . i don't know . . . making someone else's life better.

By what standard do you make someone's life better? Do you make them more happy? But you said that happiness is pointless, so why make anyone else happy?

Why is being remembered a good thing? Hitler is remembered(/Godwined). Why have immortality if you aren't there to experience it? By what standard is that immortality?

I never said happiness was pointless, I never even implied it. And there are many ways to make a person's life better. you can make them happier, or just less sad, or you can even in some cases keep someone alive. Being remembered is a good thing because it's better than being forgotten, obviously. Again, you misunderstand. Being remembered isn't immortality. Immortality is achieved through something like the creation of a lasting work of art, or having children and teaching them how to lead happy, fulfilling lives.

 

[Arakasi]

Thing is that facts are not opinion. Logic is not opinion. 'Respect' is a term used by the wrong and the ignorant to continue spreading their backwards beliefs to others without being challenged.

You do not believe in facts, as facts do not necessitate belief at all. You either accept them or not.

I do believe in facts.

be·lief
/biˈlēf/
Noun

An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.

You cannot believe in gravity or the solidity of the floor.

I do. I walk on it because I believe it will hold me up.

You either accept those facts, or you don't. Opinions, on the other hand, are not facts and therefore cannot be subject to logic (because they can neither be true nor false, and logic necessitates that the premises or axioms it processes have the capacity to be true or false).

Opinions should be based upon fact, otherwise they are not valid opinions. Someone can say that it is there opinion that the hand of god sculpted them into the prefect being, but that is not a valid opinion because it is not factual.

As for the bit about respect, we will have to agree to disagree. Though I understand where you're coming from, if you don't believe in free will. I do, so I cannot share your views on that regard.

Who knows, maybe one of us will change our mind some day.

I agree, it is the basis for science to challenge it. Though evolution as it stands is one of the strongest theories in science to date, as far as evidence goes.

Yes, and on its own, it is completely meaningless. Evolution has no purpose.

No purpose as you are using the term, I agree.

It is a name we give to a process that is random and devoid of direction.

It's hardly random or devoid of direction, it is very much directed. Not by an entity, but by itself. The mutation part may be close to random, but the selection or survival part most certainly isn't.

To base your life and ethics around such a process is much like becoming an arsonist because you have chosen the process of combustion as your guide, or becoming a murderer and destroyer because you follow the process of entropy as your guide.

I disagree entirely. What I am saying in reference to evolution is that things will go bad, people will be less happy, if we do not understand the potential impact it running unchecked could have on our society.

I won't criticise it, but I wanted to give you some perspective on how it sounds like to an external observer.

Oh I know how it sounds to an external observer, it sounds scary, it sounds like Nazism and Eugenics, and I can't say I blame them for that. While I'm here I'll have to thank you for keeping the tone respectful, few would do so in this argument.

Not that I want to convince you to commit suicide, but you're wrong.

Either the universe is causally determined (Determinism) or it is at least partially random with a mix of causality (indeterminism). Neither of these views account for something so abstract as 'free will', either the molecules that make up your brain are entirely determined or partially random. The mind is not seperate from the brain, it is the brain, the mind is an illusion.

The problem with determinism is that it presupposes that the outcome to every event has already been decided. And my question is: by whom? No atheist/agnostic determinist has ever been able to give me an answer for that other than "I don't know."

I disagree that it presupposes that someone had to determine the outcome. If a volcano errupts does that mean someone had to decide it errupted? Of course not. It does not imply an intelligence beyond our own, it just implies that things only happen because other things cause them.

Also, those are not the only theories regarding free will. Take a look here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will], there are certainly many more theories besides determinism and indeterminism. I'm a libertarianist, for example.

Oh, I know, I am very much into the subject. I just think that those views (compatibalism and libertarianism) are entirely wrong.

Here's a couple of convincing quotes on the matter:

Spoiler

?Take a moment to think about the context in which your next decision will occur: You did not pick your parents or the time and place of your birth. You didn't choose your gender or most of your life experiences. You had no control whatsoever over your genome or the development of your brain. And now your brain is making choices on the basis of preferences and beliefs that have been hammered into it over a lifetime - by your genes, your physical development since the moment you were conceived, and the interactions you have had with other people, events, and ideas. Where is the freedom in this? Yes, you are free to do what you want even now. But where did your desires come from??

?Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? We might think that a chimpanzee is exercising free will when it chooses to chomp on a banana, or a cat when it rips up your sofa, but what about the roundworm called Caenorhabditis elegans?a simple creature made of only 959 cells? It probably never thinks, ?That was damn tasty bacteria I got to dine on back there,? yet it too has a definite preference in food and will either settle for an unattractive meal or go foraging for something better, depending on recent experience. Is that the exercise of free will?

Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.?

All quite adorable quotes, but they are all based on speculation and hypotheticals.

Really? It looks to me like Hawking's version is based in hard science.

Their beliefs are neither right nor wrong- and they wouldn't be mere beliefs if we had any evidence to prove them (which also goes for this whole debate; we wouldn't be having it if there was any real evidence one way or another).

See the definition of belief again. People incorrectly mix it up with 'faith'.

I am personally quite content to continue believing what I want, and letting others do the same. After all, that is the very essence of free will. That they believe in the absence of free will while I remain unconvinced is a reaffirmation of my beliefs (in my eyes).

A poor one. It's like the person who says "there is free will, look I'll do something to prove I have free will! (Even though I am only doing this action because you mentioned the free will arguement and I want to prove you wrong)".

The coexistence of two opposite beliefs does not mean that one of them is right and the other is wrong, it further proves that beliefs are subjective and therefore cannot be neither right nor wrong.

There is no subjectivity in reality. When you make a clame of something existence, it requires proof, that is the basis of science. It goes for free will too, unless you can prove that free will exists, it's about as valid a belief as Russel's Teapot.

 

[Arakasi]

What's the fucking point? Congratulations, you're happy. You also accomplished nothing with your small pathetic life and no one will remember you or care that you're gone.

What's the point of accomplishing anything or anyone caring that you are gone?

changing the world, leaving a mark, achieving immortality . . . god forbid maybe . . . i don't know . . . making someone else's life better.

By what standard do you make someone's life better? Do you make them more happy? But you said that happiness is pointless, so why make anyone else happy?

Why is being remembered a good thing? Hitler is remembered(/Godwined). Why have immortality if you aren't there to experience it? By what standard is that immortality?

I never said happiness was pointless, I never even implied it.

You and I are going to have to disagree on that one.

And there are many ways to make a person's life better. you can make them happier...

If that makes someone's life better why not apply it to your own and have a better life?

...or just less sad...

Whilst happiness is the only good-in-itself in hedonism, pain is the only bad-in-itself. So yes, that still follows.

...or you can even in some cases keep someone alive.

Why would someone want to continue living if all they live in is pain? Keeping them alive is pointless unless they want to keep living, or you can expect that they will have a happy life.

Being remembered is a good thing because it's better than being forgotten, obviously.

I fail to see how that's obvious. If I am remembered after I'm dead it won't mean anything at all to me, because I'll be dead.

Again, you misunderstand. Being remembered isn't immortality. Immortality is achieved through something like the creation of a lasting work of art, or having children and teaching them how to lead happy, fulfilling lives.

Again you use happiness as an end-in-itself, which goes against what you said in the first post. And I didn't understand you, I understood you perfectly, I just think that there is no point to immortality of that kind if you don't get to experice joy from it.

 

[michael87cn]

Everyone would. Everyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves XD.

That's exactly what escapism (har har, name of website, har har) is about. You seek the experience of another existence.

Reading.
Watching.
Interacting.

We all think within our subconcious, "what if there could be a better life".

We might not all DECIDE to use such a machine, but once inside, we would all love it.

Basically... yes I would use such a machine. Ironic, seeing as how I'm providing this contribution to this conversation with a similarly functioning machine.

A machine that shows me dreams.

 

[Darken12]

I do believe in facts.

I do. I walk on it because I believe it will hold me up.

If you take belief as a synonym of acceptance (as the definition you provided does), that is exactly what I said. I was aiming for something like this [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief?s=t]:

be·lief [bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

You can see all three definitions specifically apply to things other than facts.

Opinions should be based upon fact, otherwise they are not valid opinions. Someone can say that it is there opinion that the hand of god sculpted them into the prefect being, but that is not a valid opinion because it is not factual.

I do not recognise you as an authority in what is valid or not when it comes to things that are internal to people other than yourself. No offence meant, I just don't know how to phrase it any more clearly.

It's hardly random or devoid of direction, it is very much directed. Not by an entity, but by itself. The mutation part may be close to random, but the selection or survival part most certainly isn't.

Evolution cannot direct anything as it has no intelligence or volition. The selection or survival parts happen entirely due to random environmental effects. Evolution happens when a creature manages to avoid dying before passing off its genes. If it dies before that, it was a random event that prevented it from passing on its genes. If another creature managed to do so before dying, that is evolution, but it is no less random, because the events that led to this selection and survival were themselves random. Darwinism sustains that those genes were passed on because they were the fittest in the environment they were in, and he does have a point, but a lot of people take this to an excessive extreme. We assign the label "fittest" only after it has survived, and surviving random events is not something that has a direction. It is unintelligent and random. Sickle cell anaemia, for example, is fitness-selected in areas of malaria. It provides resistance for some of the symptoms of malaria. And it is also a serious, debilitating genetic illness.

I disagree entirely. What I am saying in reference to evolution is that things will go bad, people will be less happy, if we do not understand the potential impact it running unchecked could have on our society.

That is social Darwinism, with a dash of eugenics thrown in. You know, the kind of thing a certain genocidal German was known for.

I disagree that it presupposes that someone had to determine the outcome. If a volcano errupts does that mean someone had to decide it errupted? Of course not. It does not imply an intelligence beyond our own, it just implies that things only happen because other things cause them.

If someone tells me that a volcano erupted because of determinism, then yes, I will ask them who decided that the volcano needed to erupt. That's the point of determinism. If things are preordained by inescapable causality, someone had to decide why the volcano erupted then and not before or after. On a molecular level, someone had to decide why a molecule bounced left instead of right (assuming a 50% chance of both) and why other 50% chances were decided in one direction and not the other.

Really? It looks to me like Hawking's version is based in hard science.

Yes, it is. And that somehow does not prevent the formulation of hypothesis or speculations. Crazy, right? You'd think hard science was all about hypothesising and speculating!

Anyway, his entire argument rests on unproven scenarios, unanswered questions and the age-old fallacy of assuming absence of evidence is evidence of absence (spoiler: it's not).

A poor one. It's like the person who says "there is free will, look I'll do something to prove I have free will! (Even though I am only doing this action because you mentioned the free will arguement and I want to prove you wrong)".

I don't intend to prove you wrong. I am explaining why I am unconvinced and what type of thing reaffirms my beliefs.

There is no subjectivity in reality. When you make a clame of something existence, it requires proof, that is the basis of science. It goes for free will too, unless you can prove that free will exists, it's about as valid a belief as Russel's Teapot.

Oh dear. I should have known. You're an objectivist. And not only in the Ayn Rand sense, you're an epistemological objectivist too.

I completely and absolutely disagree with you on subjectivity. This may come as a shock to you, but pretty much every scientist accepts that objectivity is impossible to reach due to the inherent subjectivity and bias of our perceptions. Science aims towards objectivity, never being able to reach it; and is instead based on intersubjectivity, the idea that by combining subjective experiences that align with each other, you approach objectivity asymptotically.

Furthermore, I do not need proof for beliefs I sustain and I have no intent of convincing others of. If I cared to entice others to adopt my views, you would be completely right. But I am not, I have no interest in changing the mind of any determinist. Determinists have no concrete proof that free will does not exist, their beliefs are just as baseless as mine, and I wouldn't have it any other way. That is exactly the way it should be for all things philosophical.

 

[spartan231490]

What's the fucking point? Congratulations, you're happy. You also accomplished nothing with your small pathetic life and no one will remember you or care that you're gone.

What's the point of accomplishing anything or anyone caring that you are gone?

changing the world, leaving a mark, achieving immortality . . . god forbid maybe . . . i don't know . . . making someone else's life better.

By what standard do you make someone's life better? Do you make them more happy? But you said that happiness is pointless, so why make anyone else happy?

Why is being remembered a good thing? Hitler is remembered(/Godwined). Why have immortality if you aren't there to experience it? By what standard is that immortality?

I never said happiness was pointless, I never even implied it.

You and I are going to have to disagree on that one.

And there are many ways to make a person's life better. you can make them happier...

If that makes someone's life better why not apply it to your own and have a better life?

...or just less sad...

Whilst happiness is the only good-in-itself in hedonism, pain is the only bad-in-itself. So yes, that still follows.

...or you can even in some cases keep someone alive.

Why would someone want to continue living if all they live in is pain? Keeping them alive is pointless unless they want to keep living, or you can expect that they will have a happy life.

Being remembered is a good thing because it's better than being forgotten, obviously.

I fail to see how that's obvious. If I am remembered after I'm dead it won't mean anything at all to me, because I'll be dead.

Again, you misunderstand. Being remembered isn't immortality. Immortality is achieved through something like the creation of a lasting work of art, or having children and teaching them how to lead happy, fulfilling lives.

Again you use happiness as an end-in-itself, which goes against what you said in the first post. And I didn't understand you, I understood you perfectly, I just think that there is no point to immortality of that kind if you don't get to experice joy from it.

I never said happiness wasn't a good end, I said happiness for just yourself doesn't mean much. This may come as a shock to you, but the world is bigger than you.

 

[launchpadmcqwak]

naa i have things to do in this life, ask me in thirty years

 

[Arakasi]

What's the fucking point? Congratulations, you're happy. You also accomplished nothing with your small pathetic life and no one will remember you or care that you're gone.

What's the point of accomplishing anything or anyone caring that you are gone?

changing the world, leaving a mark, achieving immortality . . . god forbid maybe . . . i don't know . . . making someone else's life better.

By what standard do you make someone's life better? Do you make them more happy? But you said that happiness is pointless, so why make anyone else happy?

Why is being remembered a good thing? Hitler is remembered(/Godwined). Why have immortality if you aren't there to experience it? By what standard is that immortality?

I never said happiness was pointless, I never even implied it.

You and I are going to have to disagree on that one.

And there are many ways to make a person's life better. you can make them happier...

If that makes someone's life better why not apply it to your own and have a better life?

...or just less sad...

Whilst happiness is the only good-in-itself in hedonism, pain is the only bad-in-itself. So yes, that still follows.

...or you can even in some cases keep someone alive.

Why would someone want to continue living if all they live in is pain? Keeping them alive is pointless unless they want to keep living, or you can expect that they will have a happy life.

Being remembered is a good thing because it's better than being forgotten, obviously.

I fail to see how that's obvious. If I am remembered after I'm dead it won't mean anything at all to me, because I'll be dead.

Again, you misunderstand. Being remembered isn't immortality. Immortality is achieved through something like the creation of a lasting work of art, or having children and teaching them how to lead happy, fulfilling lives.

Again you use happiness as an end-in-itself, which goes against what you said in the first post. And I didn't understand you, I understood you perfectly, I just think that there is no point to immortality of that kind if you don't get to experice joy from it.

I never said happiness wasn't a good end, I said happiness for just yourself doesn't mean much. This may come as a shock to you, but the world is bigger than you.

Really, I had no idea, see I've been walking around thinking that 'the world' meant only the space I occupy. Thank you for enlightening me.

So what you are saying is that you would rather a society where everone works for eachother's happiness instead of a society where everyone works for their own happiness? You could have just said that. It also doesn't seem fair to me.

 

[spartan231490]

What's the fucking point? Congratulations, you're happy. You also accomplished nothing with your small pathetic life and no one will remember you or care that you're gone.

What's the point of accomplishing anything or anyone caring that you are gone?

changing the world, leaving a mark, achieving immortality . . . god forbid maybe . . . i don't know . . . making someone else's life better.

By what standard do you make someone's life better? Do you make them more happy? But you said that happiness is pointless, so why make anyone else happy?

Why is being remembered a good thing? Hitler is remembered(/Godwined). Why have immortality if you aren't there to experience it? By what standard is that immortality?

I never said happiness was pointless, I never even implied it.

You and I are going to have to disagree on that one.

And there are many ways to make a person's life better. you can make them happier...

If that makes someone's life better why not apply it to your own and have a better life?

...or just less sad...

Whilst happiness is the only good-in-itself in hedonism, pain is the only bad-in-itself. So yes, that still follows.

...or you can even in some cases keep someone alive.

Why would someone want to continue living if all they live in is pain? Keeping them alive is pointless unless they want to keep living, or you can expect that they will have a happy life.

Being remembered is a good thing because it's better than being forgotten, obviously.

I fail to see how that's obvious. If I am remembered after I'm dead it won't mean anything at all to me, because I'll be dead.

Again, you misunderstand. Being remembered isn't immortality. Immortality is achieved through something like the creation of a lasting work of art, or having children and teaching them how to lead happy, fulfilling lives.

Again you use happiness as an end-in-itself, which goes against what you said in the first post. And I didn't understand you, I understood you perfectly, I just think that there is no point to immortality of that kind if you don't get to experice joy from it.

I never said happiness wasn't a good end, I said happiness for just yourself doesn't mean much. This may come as a shock to you, but the world is bigger than you.

Really, I had no idea, see I've been walking around thinking that 'the world' meant only the space I occupy. Thank you for enlightening me.

So what you are saying is that you would rather a society where everone works for eachother's happiness instead of a society where everyone works for their own happiness? You could have just said that. It also doesn't seem fair to me.

No, I said I'd rather a society where people work for more than just their own happiness, maybe you should go put on your glasses. And you can't hear me, but this is where I leave the room cursing the stupidity and ignorance of my fellow man.

 

[Arakasi]

I do believe in facts.

I do. I walk on it because I believe it will hold me up.

If you take belief as a synonym of acceptance (as the definition you provided does), that is exactly what I said. I was aiming for something like this [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief?s=t]:

be·lief [bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

You can see all three definitions specifically apply to things other than facts.

For sake of simplicity I try not to use the word 'believe' in my language, unless I refer to someone else. When I have an opinion that is unchecked I say 'I think that...' and when I refer to someone having a belief without evidence I call it 'faith'. But when I do use believe, I refer to that definition.

Opinions should be based upon fact, otherwise they are not valid opinions. Someone can say that it is there opinion that the hand of god sculpted them into the prefect being, but that is not a valid opinion because it is not factual.

I do not recognise you as an authority in what is valid or not when it comes to things that are internal to people other than yourself. No offence meant, I just don't know how to phrase it any more clearly.

I don't need to be an authority, it takes two seconds to realise that the statement that person made is false, unless you are a fool.

It's hardly random or devoid of direction, it is very much directed. Not by an entity, but by itself. The mutation part may be close to random, but the selection or survival part most certainly isn't.

Evolution cannot direct anything as it has no intelligence or volition.

Perhaps I am simplifying again. If I were to say that gravity directs the cannon ball in a downward trajectory would you get what I mean by 'direct' then?

The selection or survival parts happen entirely due to random environmental effects.

Environmental affects + the genes that allow the creature to survive them, or not.

Evolution happens when a creature manages to avoid dying before passing off its genes. If it dies before that, it was a random event that prevented it from passing on its genes.

Not really, if it were too slow because its genes were mutated and gave it a gimp leg which resulted in it being caught by a predator by what means is that a random event?

If another creature managed to do so before dying, that is evolution, but it is no less random, because the events that led to this selection and survival were themselves random.

I am starting to think that you have a profound misunderstanding of evolution.

Darwinism sustains that those genes were passed on because they were the fittest in the environment they were in, and he does have a point, but a lot of people take this to an excessive extreme.

That seems a little simplified.
Certain genes survive because they produced in the individual the ability to be able to survive and reproduce in the environment they were in, more so than competeing genes.

We assign the label "fittest" only after it has survived, and surviving random events is not something that has a direction

'Survival of the fittest' is kind of an outdated idea, evolution is more about gene survival/reproduction than it is about individual survival/reproduction.

It is unintelligent and random.

You've really got to stop using the word random. It is not remotely random. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTHZxozpnm4
The process is blind, I mentioned this before.

Sickle cell anaemia, for example, is fitness-selected in areas of malaria. It provides resistance for some of the symptoms of malaria. And it is also a serious, debilitating genetic illness.

That does not prove anything. I am aware of this, my biology teacher taught me about it a few years ago. Should it turn out that surviving malaria is more advantageous than having the side-effects of sickle cell anaemia, then the gene for it shall be spread throughout the genepool. That depends significantly on the prevalence and deadliness of malaria. It is hardly random.

I disagree entirely. What I am saying in reference to evolution is that things will go bad, people will be less happy, if we do not understand the potential impact it running unchecked could have on our society.

That is social Darwinism, with a dash of eugenics thrown in. You know, the kind of thing a certain genocidal German was known for.

And now I can remove my former accolades given for keeping the discussion calm and rational. All I said there was that genetics are important and need to be taken into account, by an unspecified method, if we want the human race to continue to live happily.

I disagree that it presupposes that someone had to determine the outcome. If a volcano errupts does that mean someone had to decide it errupted? Of course not. It does not imply an intelligence beyond our own, it just implies that things only happen because other things cause them.

If someone tells me that a volcano erupted because of determinism, then yes, I will ask them who decided that the volcano needed to erupt.

No one did, it was part of a chain of causation.

That's the point of determinism. If things are preordained by inescapable causality, someone had to decide why the volcano erupted then and not before or after.

No, no they didn't. Causality decided it. That's like saying that someone had to decide that one domino knocked over another.

On a molecular level, someone had to decide why a molecule bounced left instead of right (assuming a 50% chance of both) and why other 50% chances were decided in one direction and not the other.

Determinism denies the idea of chance. There is no chance. There is simply percieved chance, such as rolling a die, there are too many variables for us to know instinctively what it will do, so we apply chance to it to see what is most likely and what isn't. Chance is just a method to predict the future.

Really? It looks to me like Hawking's version is based in hard science.

Yes, it is. And that somehow does not prevent the formulation of hypothesis or speculations. Crazy, right? You'd think hard science was all about hypothesising and speculating!

Hard science is about speculating, hypothesising, then finding proof for it. There is no proof against any of the claims made, there is only proof for it. Unless you can find me some proof against it.

Anyway, his entire argument rests on unproven scenarios, unanswered questions and the age-old fallacy of assuming absence of evidence is evidence of absence (spoiler: it's not).

Yes it is. It is probibalistic evidence of absense. Because I have no evidence to support the idea that there is a teapot floating around Saturn, there is probably no teapot floating around Saturn. It's fairly simple.

A poor one. It's like the person who says "there is free will, look I'll do something to prove I have free will! (Even though I am only doing this action because you mentioned the free will arguement and I want to prove you wrong)".

I don't intend to prove you wrong. I am explaining why I am unconvinced and what type of thing reaffirms my beliefs.

That doesn't mean that it logically follows.

There is no subjectivity in reality. When you make a clame of something existence, it requires proof, that is the basis of science. It goes for free will too, unless you can prove that free will exists, it's about as valid a belief as Russel's Teapot.

Oh dear. I should have known. You're an objectivist. And not only in the Ayn Rand sense, you're an epistemological objectivist too.

Yep.

I completely and absolutely disagree with you on subjectivity. This may come as a shock to you, but pretty much every scientist accepts that objectivity is impossible to reach due to the inherent subjectivity and bias of our perceptions.

I am aware of that. It does not disprove the idea that there is an objective reality though. It only shows that we think that we can't know it for certain, and I would agree.

Science aims towards objectivity, never being able to reach it; and is instead based on intersubjectivity, the idea that by combining subjective experiences that align with each other, you approach objectivity asymptotically.

I still agree with that, but it still doesn't go against what I said. What I said is that there is an actual reality, I did not say we could know all about it for certain.

Furthermore, I do not need proof for beliefs I sustain and I have no intent of convincing others of.

See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM
I recommend you watch all of it. If you don't, don't bother replying to me.

If I cared to entice others to adopt my views, you would be completely right. But I am not, I have no interest in changing the mind of any determinist.

See the above video.

Determinists have no concrete proof that free will does not exist, their beliefs are just as baseless as mine, and I wouldn't have it any other way. That is exactly the way it should be for all things philosophical.

Bullshit.
You are making the claim that something exists, if you do not provide evidence, the default is that it does not exist. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot -Russell's Teapot[/quote].

 

[Arakasi]

What's the fucking point? Congratulations, you're happy. You also accomplished nothing with your small pathetic life and no one will remember you or care that you're gone.

What's the point of accomplishing anything or anyone caring that you are gone?

changing the world, leaving a mark, achieving immortality . . . god forbid maybe . . . i don't know . . . making someone else's life better.

By what standard do you make someone's life better? Do you make them more happy? But you said that happiness is pointless, so why make anyone else happy?

Why is being remembered a good thing? Hitler is remembered(/Godwined). Why have immortality if you aren't there to experience it? By what standard is that immortality?

I never said happiness was pointless, I never even implied it.

You and I are going to have to disagree on that one.

And there are many ways to make a person's life better. you can make them happier...

If that makes someone's life better why not apply it to your own and have a better life?

...or just less sad...

Whilst happiness is the only good-in-itself in hedonism, pain is the only bad-in-itself. So yes, that still follows.

...or you can even in some cases keep someone alive.

Why would someone want to continue living if all they live in is pain? Keeping them alive is pointless unless they want to keep living, or you can expect that they will have a happy life.

Being remembered is a good thing because it's better than being forgotten, obviously.

I fail to see how that's obvious. If I am remembered after I'm dead it won't mean anything at all to me, because I'll be dead.

Again, you misunderstand. Being remembered isn't immortality. Immortality is achieved through something like the creation of a lasting work of art, or having children and teaching them how to lead happy, fulfilling lives.

Again you use happiness as an end-in-itself, which goes against what you said in the first post. And I didn't understand you, I understood you perfectly, I just think that there is no point to immortality of that kind if you don't get to experice joy from it.

I never said happiness wasn't a good end, I said happiness for just yourself doesn't mean much. This may come as a shock to you, but the world is bigger than you.

Really, I had no idea, see I've been walking around thinking that 'the world' meant only the space I occupy. Thank you for enlightening me.

So what you are saying is that you would rather a society where everone works for eachother's happiness instead of a society where everyone works for their own happiness? You could have just said that. It also doesn't seem fair to me.

No, I said I'd rather a society where people work for more than just their own happiness, maybe you should go put on your glasses. And you can't hear me, but this is where I leave the room cursing the stupidity and ignorance of my fellow man.

Alright, so you say you are sick of it and decide to leave the argument, that does not mean you are right, and that does not mean that I will stop arguing.

So what you're saying is that you want a moderate society, where everone works for both their own happiness and others too (you never actually said that up until now)? And that would be better than everyone simply working for their own happiness (provided they don't harm anyone for it)?