:eek: http://youtu.be/oyH2D4-tzfM :eh: :confused: :borg: Solitary
Is there any reason for me to behave any differently than I do under the assumption that we real real even if we aren't?
Does it matter?
I'm real bored.
Also real horny.
I guess I'll go on a real shooting spree.
But not really.
I matter, you're immaterial.....get it? LOLOL....oh I kill myself sometimes..
"Are we real?"
Casparov strikes again
I have some home movies on a reel. Does that matter?
Sent via your mom
I am real. God is not. That's all I need to know.
If I feel real does it really matter that matter may not be real.
I feel therefore I'm real
Define a real.
This is the wrong question. Of course we are real! Whether we are living in a simulation or exist in an external objective material reality, we are real either way. The better question is, "Is Materialism true?" The answer is a resounding "NO", Materialism was a good approximation that got us by for quite a long time just like flat earth theory and geocentric universe theory did before it. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Materialism is in it's death throws and will soon be replaced by a virtual reality model of reality within the framework of Idealism.
First it will be granted that virtual reality is a superior model, but people will still maintain that it is simulated in a material reality on a material computer to save their cherished belief in Materialism for just a little while longer.
Then, after getting used to the idea of loosening one's grip on Materialism, it will be granted that the computer that is simulating this reality is consciousness itself. Consciousness is the computer.
It is only a matter of time. It will be a long drawn out fight against belief, but in the end reason will prevail. Enjoy the ride.
Materialism: "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
Quote from: Casparov on May 04, 2014, 02:04:40 PM
This is the wrong question. Of course we are real! Whether we are living in a simulation or exist in an external objective material reality, we are real either way. The better question is, "Is Materialism true?" The answer is a resounding "NO", Materialism was a good approximation that got us by for quite a long time just like flat earth theory and geocentric universe theory did before it. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Materialism is in it's death throws and will soon be replaced by a virtual reality model of reality within the framework of Idealism.
First it will be granted that virtual reality is a superior model, but people will still maintain that it is simulated in a material reality on a material computer to save their cherished belief in Materialism for just a little while longer.
Then, after getting used to the idea of loosening one's grip on Materialism, it will be granted that the computer that is simulating this reality is consciousness itself. Consciousness is the computer.
It is only a matter of time. It will be a long drawn out fight against belief, but in the end reason will prevail. Enjoy the ride.
You should be in a nut house.
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/05/u5aqa4u6.jpg)
If you believe you're not real please prove it and disappear permanently. We'll speculate from there out if you were real or not.
Quote from: Casparov on May 04, 2014, 02:04:40 PM
This is the wrong question. Of course we are real! Whether we are living in a simulation or exist in an external objective material reality, we are real either way. The better question is, "Is Materialism true?" The answer is a resounding "NO", Materialism was a good approximation that got us by for quite a long time just like flat earth theory and geocentric universe theory did before it. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Materialism is in it's death throws and will soon be replaced by a virtual reality model of reality within the framework of Idealism.
First it will be granted that virtual reality is a superior model, but people will still maintain that it is simulated in a material reality on a material computer to save their cherished belief in Materialism for just a little while longer.
Then, after getting used to the idea of loosening one's grip on Materialism, it will be granted that the computer that is simulating this reality is consciousness itself. Consciousness is the computer.
It is only a matter of time. It will be a long drawn out fight against belief, but in the end reason will prevail. Enjoy the ride.
Quote"Morpheus: Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is. You'll have to see it for yourself."
You cannot prove material reality is an illusion from within the illusion.
The quantum eraser experiment that you so carelessly misinterpret would be part of the illusion. You can't dismiss all evidence that that world is materially real because you can't trust anything you see and feel... then throw yourself headlong into a belief based on an experiment that you see and feel. That's hypocrisy.
Solipsism is self refuting. Don't blame anyone for that but yourself.
This thread is an illusion.
I'm real. I just got done feeling myself from head to foot, and it was GOOD.
Quote from: Berati on May 06, 2014, 01:40:00 PM
You cannot prove material reality is an illusion from within the illusion.
The quantum eraser experiment that you so carelessly misinterpret would be part of the illusion. You can't dismiss all evidence that that world is materially real because you can't trust anything you see and feel... then throw yourself headlong into a belief based on an experiment that you see and feel. That's hypocrisy.
So you argument is that everyone in the Matrix had zero hope and were absolute hypocrites if they agreed with experimental evidence that were living in the matrix? They would be correct. They would have grasped objective truth of their situation, yet you argue that they would ultimately be hypocrites if they didn't assume materialism regardless of the evidence? They
must assume incorrectly about their actual situation?
As it is argued in "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality" by Brian Whitworth http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf)
QuoteCan science evaluate if a world is a virtual reality from within it? Suppose one day that the computer code that creates “The Simsâ€, a virtual online world, became so complex that some Sims within the simulation began to “thinkâ€. Could they deduce that their world was a virtual world, or at least that it was likely to be so? If simulated beings in a simulated world acquired thought, like us, would they see their world as we see ours now? A virtual entity could not perceive the processing that creates its world, but it could conceive it, as we do now. They could compare how a virtual reality would behave with how their world actually behaved. They could not “knowâ€, but they could deduce a likelihood, which is all our science does anyway.
Based on evidence and observation one can deduce whether they live in an Objective Reality or a Virtual one. Both are "real", only one asserts external objective material and the other asserts only consciousness and information.
QuoteDr Johnson is said to have reacted to that idea the world is created by the mind by stubbing his toe on a stone and saying “I disprove it thusâ€. However VR theory does not claim that the world is unreal to its inhabitants, only that it is not objectively real.
To clarify the difference, suppose information processing in one world creates a second virtual world. To an observer in the first world, events within the virtual world are “unrealâ€, but to an observer within the virtual world, virtual events are as real as it gets. If a virtual gun wounds a virtual man, to that virtual man the pain is “realâ€. That a world is calculated does not mean it has no “realityâ€, merely that its reality is local to itself. Even in a virtual reality, stubbed toes will still hurt and falling trees will still make sounds when no-one is around. Reality is relative to the observer, so by analogy, a table is “solid†because our hands are made of the same atoms as the table. To a neutrino, the table is just a ghostly insubstantiality through which it flies, as is the entire earth. Things constituted the same way are substantial to each other, so likewise what is “real†depends upon the world it is measured from. To say a world is a virtual doesn’t imply it is unreal to its inhabitants, only that its reality is “local†to that world, i.e. not an objective reality.
To Casper:
Prove it or shut the fuck up.
Quote from: Casparov on May 04, 2014, 02:04:40 PM
This is the wrong question. Of course we are real! Whether we are living in a simulation or exist in an external objective material reality, we are real either way. The better question is, "Is Materialism true?"
Do you actually have anything else to talk about? Is there not one subject you can join in on without somehow connecting it to your pet theory?
Quote from: Casparov on May 04, 2014, 02:04:40 PM
The better question is, "Is Materialism true?"
I disagree. An even
better question than your question is, whether or not in your world view you regard materialism as true,
how does that actually affect the way you behave?Can you name one thing that only a person that accepts your world view can do, and one that rejects it cannot?
You've stated that the goal, in your world view, is to evolve (however you might take that to mean) and to better ourselves.
That's pretty much an extremely generic goal, in the sense that I am having a hard time thinking of even one world view that dictates the goal in life is to stay as you are.
So to me, "are we real" is, for all intents and purposes, mental masturbation. What I am preoccupied with more is what you do with that answer.
Quote from: Shol'va on May 06, 2014, 08:11:30 PM
I disagree. An even better question than your question is, whether or not in your world view you regard materialism as true, how does that actually affect the way you behave?
Can you name one thing that only a person that accepts your world view can do, and one that rejects it cannot?
You've stated that the goal, in your world view, is to evolve (however you might take that to mean) and to better ourselves.
That's pretty much an extremely generic goal, in the sense that I am having a hard time thinking of even one world view that dictates the goal in life is to stay as you are.
So to me, "are we real" is, for all intents and purposes, mental masturbation. What I am preoccupied with more is what you do with that answer.
How something effects the way you behave has no baring on it's Truth Value. If you are concerned about knowing what is true, then "Is this true?" is a good question to ask. If you are not concerned with what is actually the case and what is true, then perhaps it is a waste of time for you to ask such questions. Regardless, "does it affect my behavior?" has nothing to do with whether or not something is the actual case.
That being said, the idea that "We are all One Consciousness experiencing itself subjectively" will effect behavior because with it comes the knowledge that ultimately "We Are All One".
Morality then falls out of this knowledge. The Golden Rule makes a whole lot of sense if "others are yourself". If you see yourself in others and all creatures you behave differently than if you believe yourself to be separate and unaffected by the plight of others. If however you realize that what you do to another you are literally doing to yourself, then your behavior should reflect that knowledge.
"We are one" can also be said of a humanist. It is the recognition that we are all humans and the acknowledgement that my suffering is very well someone elses, and I should not do unto others what I do not like done unto me.
There isn't anything that you've argued for which is neither exclusive nor contingent on a world view which proposes all of this is a simulation. In other words you bring nothing to the table other than an assertion. No "oughts" to live by, no ultimate code of ethics, nothing.
In fact, it can be argued that such a world view can be toxic. Think Inception. If I genuinely believe this is all a simulation and I simply want to unplug, I can just off myself. Which is fine, but what if I also decide to end others because according to my own perception of this particular world view, I'd be doing them a favor.
Quote from: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 08:36:32 PM
How something effects the way you behave has no baring on it's Truth Value.
You are missing the point. You haven't shown the "value" part in that "truth" proposition.
Quote from: Shol'va on May 06, 2014, 08:41:55 PM
"We are one" can also be said of a humanist. It is the recognition that we are all humans and the acknowledgement that my suffering is very well someone elses, and I should not do unto others what I do not like done unto me.
There isn't anything that you've argued for which is neither exclusive nor contingent on a world view which proposes all of this is a simulation. In other words you bring nothing to the table other than an assertion. No "oughts" to live by, no ultimate code of ethics, nothing.
If you truly treat others as if "we are all one" and you are steadily evolving towards love, then you are correct. Having a larger and more accurate picture of reality adds nothing behavior-wise. The only thing that can be offered beyond that is better understanding of the nature of existence.
QuoteIn fact, it can be argued that such a world view can be toxic. Think Inception. If I genuinely believe this is all a simulation and I simply want to unplug, I can just off myself. Which is fine, but what if I also decide to end others because according to my own perception of this particular world view, I'd be doing them a favor.
In my view committing suicide is a waste of time. We are here to evolve and committing suicide only throws a wrench into the process and slows it down. I believe in reincarnation, either back into this reality or another like it. In this view killing others or yourself is not doing anyone any favors it's just causing a bunch of heart ache and unnecessary wasting of time and resources.
On the other hand if one believes that existence ceases at death then such a world view could be toxic. Consider someone who is convinced that existence is nothing but pain and suffering and therefore killing everyone and him/herself would be doing everyone a favor by ending all of the suffering. There is a thread on this forum started by such a person who does not wish to exist, and the belief that existence stops after physical death is toxic in this situation because he truly believes he has an "out". And so suicide is a logical conclusion according to your world view. So don't try to convince me that a belief that consciousness ceases at physical death is preferred behaviorally.
Also, someone who believes they are their brain and their physical body believes themselves to be a separate material object and therefore considers morality only a virtue but not an integrated part of the nature of reality. Selfishness and fear are the products of the belief that one is separated from the rest.
Further, "humanism" only has to do with "humans" whereas the concept that "We Are All One" includes all living creatures and whole of reality.
Quote“A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.†- Albert Einstein
Quote from: Casparov on May 06, 2014, 03:19:05 PM
So you argument is that everyone in the Matrix had zero hope and were absolute hypocrites if they agreed with experimental evidence that were living in the matrix? They would be correct. They would have grasped objective truth of their situation, yet you argue that they would ultimately be hypocrites if they didn't assume materialism regardless of the evidence? They must assume incorrectly about their actual situation?
You're very good at missing the point.
There was no experimental evidence from within the Matrix. None. Just as you have none. That is what Morpheus was saying.
The only solution in The Matrix was to take Neo out of the illusion. Can you do that? NO! In the movie, the Matrix was real. In the non movie universe, the Matrix is just a movie.
So, for you to reject all physical evidence of a material universe as illusion and then turn around and attempt to use physical evidence in support of your self centered view of the universe is hypocrisy in action.
Quote from: Berati on May 07, 2014, 07:44:17 PM
You're very good at missing the point.
There was no experimental evidence from within the Matrix. None. Just as you have none. That is what Morpheus was saying.
The only solution in The Matrix was to take Neo out of the illusion. Can you do that? NO! In the movie, the Matrix was real. In the non movie universe, the Matrix is just a movie.
If you want a red pill you can have one, it's not as easy just popping a pill in real life though. You have to dedicate time and effort to mastering a skill which is referred to "Self Induced Out of Body Experiences". You may need to spend up to six months in disciplined practice to achieve this, but when you do, you can "take Neo out of the illusion" as you say and evaluate the experience from this other perspective. Of course no one can convince that this are not just hallucinations and tricks of the brain, only you can make that determination after having experienced it for yourself.
So if you want a Red Pill, you have just been offered one. Now do you want it bad enough to spend the next several months in disciplined practice of a complicated skill? That is a choice no one can make but you. But don't claim that you were never offered your Red Pill, just admit that you weren't willing to do what it takes to accept it.
QuoteSo, for you to reject all physical evidence of a material universe as illusion and then turn around and attempt to use physical evidence in support of your self centered view of the universe is hypocrisy in action.
To postulate the world is virtual does not contradict science, but rather engages its spirit of questioning. Science is a method of asking questions, not a set of reality assumptions. Scientists are entitled to ask if what could be, actually is so. The only constraint is that the question be decided by feedback gathered from the world by an accepted research method. Science does not require an objective world, only information to test theories against, which a VR can easily provide. Not only can science accommodate the virtual world concept, a virtual world could also sustain science.
The vast majority of us believe that what we and every other living thing whether tree, squirrel, paramecium or strawberry "experience" is real to us, while a few believe that what we "experience" is the product of something unknown because....er....that would make it SO much more interesting to a life that is relatively boring. Sing it with me gang...WE ARE FAMILY....ALL MY SISTERS BROTHERS AND ME.........WE ARE FAMILY!!! I GOT ..ER........whatever the fuck comes next.
Quote from: KUSA on April 30, 2014, 10:50:19 PM
I am real. God is not. That's all I need to know.
Yeah, but do you occasionally go a full day without putting on pants like some of us?
Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 09:37:44 PM
If you want a red pill you can have one, it's not as easy just popping a pill in real life though. You have to dedicate time and effort to mastering a skill which is referred to "Self Induced Out of Body Experiences". You may need to spend up to six months in disciplined practice to achieve this, but when you do, you can "take Neo out of the illusion" as you say and evaluate the experience from this other perspective. Of course no one can convince that this are not just hallucinations and tricks of the brain, only you can make that determination after having experienced it for yourself.
Wrong. Out of body experiences are very easy to test and the test would be very easily repeatable but no evidence is has ever been found. Also, out of body experiences are easily simulated by physiological, psychological and experimental conditions. The easiest way to induce it is through oxygen deprivation.
QuoteSo if you want a Red Pill, you have just been offered one. Now do you want it bad enough to spend the next several months in disciplined practice of a complicated skill? That is a choice no one can make but you. But don't claim that you were never offered your Red Pill, just admit that you weren't willing to do what it takes to accept it.
Wrong. You yourself admit it could easily be a hallucination and yet you put it out as "proof" that our material body is the hallucination. :eyes:
Are you even trying to be reasonable??
QuoteTo postulate the world is virtual does not contradict science, but rather engages its spirit of questioning. Science is a method of asking questions, not a set of reality assumptions. Scientists are entitled to ask if what could be, actually is so.
Yes but you claim those scientists and there apparatus are an illusion when it doesn't suit you and that is hypocrisy.
Quote from: Berati on May 07, 2014, 10:27:59 PM
Wrong. You yourself admit it could easily be a hallucination and yet you put it out as "proof" that our material body is the hallucination.
The fact that there cannot be said to be any mind-independent material is the proof that your material body cannot produce mind. That's the scientific proof at least.
The philosophical proof is that you cannot doubt that your mind exists but you can absolutely doubt that external objective material exists. Therefore, you know that mind exists, but you do not know that objective material exists. To assert that objective material definitely does exist would be an assertion which requires proof.
If you are going to hold to the claim that we exist in an objective material universe realize that you are making a positive claim that requires proof. Provide proof of your positive claim please. I have already offered plenty of evidence that suggests we should doubt that your claim is true, yet you refuse do offer any evidence to support your claim about reality. You simply assert it as absolute undoubtable unquestionable Truth. (much like a religious person)
QuoteYes but you claim those scientists and there apparatus are an illusion when it doesn't suit you and that is hypocrisy.
What you don't seem to understand is that I am not saying that "nothing is real" I am just saying that the better explanation for our observations is a virtual reality produced by information processing. This conclusion can be arrived at without the assumption of Materialism. Science only requires information and an accepted research method with which to ask and answer questions about the information in question. Assuming Realism and Materialism are not a requirement of science.
Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 10:49:08 PM
The fact that there cannot be said to be any mind-independent material is the proof that your material body cannot produce mind. That's the scientific proof at least.
The philosophical proof is that you cannot doubt that your mind exists but you can absolutely doubt that external objective material exists. Therefore, you know that mind exists, but you do not know that objective material exists. To assert that objective material definitely does exist would be an assertion which requires proof.
If you are going to hold to the claim that we exist in an objective material universe realize that you are making a positive claim that requires proof. Provide proof of your positive claim please. I have already offered plenty of evidence that suggests we should doubt that your claim is true, yet you refuse do offer any evidence to support your claim about reality. You simply assert it as absolute undoubtable unquestionable Truth. (much like a religious person)
What you don't seem to understand is that I am not saying that "nothing is real" I am just saying that the better explanation for our observations is a virtual reality produced by information processing. This conclusion can be arrived at without the assumption of Materialism. Science only requires information and an accepted research method with which to ask and answer questions about the information in question. Assuming Realism and Materialism are not a requirement of science.
WOW so much wrong int this post I don't know if I should bother correcting you but what the hell Ive got nothing else to do right now:
Actually your "proof" is NOT in fact proof. A lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. Your claim is also unbacked by any REAL science.
But you want proof that the universe is material, I propose a test. You go outside and run in front of a speeding truck and will yourself to not be hurt or killed, if you are right nothing will happen, IF the universe is in fact a material one you will be splatted all over the trucks front grill and the road.
I'll wait....
Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 09:37:44 PMYou have to dedicate time and effort to mastering a skill which is referred to "Self Induced Out of Body Experiences".
TIL acid trips disprove a material universe.
Quote from: Moralnihilist on May 07, 2014, 11:29:10 PM
But you want proof that the universe is material, I propose a test. You go outside and run in front of a speeding truck and will yourself to not be hurt or killed, if you are right nothing will happen, IF the universe is in fact a material one you will be splatted all over the trucks front grill and the road.
I'll wait....
So people in the matrix don't get killed by getting hit by trucks? Everybody in the matrix could just say, "Hey look, people that get hit by trucks get hurt or killed, therefore, this logically PROVES that we are not in the matrix."?? Your test would not effectively test whether we live in an objective or virtual reality.
"Either Materialism is true, or the laws of physics no longer apply," is a False Dichotomy. If this is the best counter-argument you can come up with then I am very very pleased.
From "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf):
QuoteDoesn’t common sense deny that the world which appears so real to us is a virtual reality? Philosophers like Plato have long recognized that the reality of reality is not provable. Bishop Berkeley’s solipsism argued that a tree falling in a wood will make no sound if no-one is there to hear it. Dr Johnson is said to have reacted to that idea the world is created by the mind by stubbing his toe on a stone and saying “I disprove it thusâ€. However VR theory does not claim that the world is unreal to its inhabitants, only that it is not objectively real.
To clarify the difference, suppose information processing in one world creates a second virtual world. To an observer in the first world, events within the virtual world are “unrealâ€, but to an observer within the virtual world, virtual events are as real as it gets. If a virtual gun wounds a virtual man, to that virtual man the pain is “realâ€. That a world is calculated does not mean it has no “realityâ€, merely that its reality is local to itself. Even in a virtual reality, stubbed toes will still hurt and falling trees will still make sounds when no-one is around. Reality is relative to the observer, so by analogy, a table is “solid†because our hands are made of the same atoms as the table. To a neutrino, the table is just a ghostly insubstantiality through which it flies, as is the entire earth. Things constituted the same way are substantial to each other, so likewise what is “real†depends upon the world it is measured from. To say a world is virtual doesn’t imply it is unreal to its inhabitants, only that its reality is “local†to that world, i.e. not an objective reality.
A true test of the claim that we exist in an objective material reality would be to test if material objects exist independent of observation, to test if material objects obey the principles of Locality and Causality without exception. To test if space-time is continuous rather than discrete. To test if reality is directly correlated and indistinguishable from information. In fact if there were a single thing about reality that was uncalculable via information processing this would be undisputable proof that the universe could not virtual, and yet every thing about reality is calculable.
There is no proof POSSIBLE for the positive claim that we exist in an objective material universe (besides weak arguments like, "go kick a rock" or "go get hit by a bus" but these are not even good apologetics, not to even mention actual evidence or proof). And yet there is
direct proof that Materialism is incompatible with modern Quantum experimentation and that every thing we ever observe about reality is consistent with a virtual reality model of the universe.
What have you to offer besides weak apologetics?
Casper, run for political office as a tea party darling. You use a whole lot of words to say absolutely nothing worth reading. Just think of the speeches you could give in Mississippi where everything you say would be gospel because not one thing you say makes a lick of sense.
Quote from: Solitary on May 08, 2014, 03:36:26 AM
Why don't you try it and find out if they are not proof? Because you know damned well they are not mental in the world of reality, and only in your head by creating what you experience from an objective universe's data, like every other living thing reacts to. If the world is only mental then anything is possible, and it is obvious it isn't because not everything is possible. Can you walk on water? Can you put "your" hand through a wall? Even though everything is made of sub atomic particles that can do things that objective particles can't doesn't make them mental. They are still particles. Even light is made of particles called photons that have mass. Even space time is made of particles that make it bend from massive objects. Bite on a piece of tin foil and feel the individual electron particles go through your tongue. Or press on your eyes and see the individual photons makes light flashes you can see. Objective reality itself is proof it is materialistic and not mental, as is your physical body. "There are none so blind as those that refuse to see." Solitary
All of this is still true if the world is virtual instead of objective. Casparov
Quote from: Casparov on May 08, 2014, 01:47:05 AM
So people in the matrix don't get killed by getting hit by trucks? Everybody in the matrix could just say, "Hey look, people that get hit by trucks get hurt or killed, therefore, this logically PROVES that we are not in the matrix."?? Your test would not effectively test whether we live in an objective or virtual reality.
"Either Materialism is true, or the laws of physics no longer apply," is a False Dichotomy. If this is the best counter-argument you can come up with then I am very very pleased.
From "The Physical World as a Virtual Reality" http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf):
A true test of the claim that we exist in an objective material reality would be to test if material objects exist independent of observation, to test if material objects obey the principles of Locality and Causality without exception. To test if space-time is continuous rather than discrete. To test if reality is directly correlated and indistinguishable from information. In fact if there were a single thing about reality that was uncalculable via information processing this would be undisputable proof that the universe could not virtual, and yet every thing about reality is calculable.
There is no proof POSSIBLE for the positive claim that we exist in an objective material universe (besides weak arguments like, "go kick a rock" or "go get hit by a bus" but these are not even good apologetics, not to even mention actual evidence or proof). And yet there is direct proof that Materialism is incompatible with modern Quantum experimentation and that every thing we ever observe about reality is consistent with a virtual reality model of the universe.
What have you to offer besides weak apologetics?
Actually shithead I simply wanted you to get hit by a speeding car. Frankly you have yet to offer one microgram of evidence to suggest ANYTHING other than materialism as being a viable alternative. See shithead heres how science REALLY works, IF you want to prove something you must be able to test the theory. Now shit-for-brains, according to the matrix(movies, really this is your basis for this "theory"? REALLY??) if one is aware that the matrix is nothing more than a simulation one can adjust the "rules" of said matrix, so needledick since you claim that the world does not exist outside of your pathetic little mind, again I invite you to run in front of a speeding truck. Since the universe doesn't exist outside of your empty little head, and you are aware that it is a simulation, you should be able to reprogram the laws of reality to bend so that your precious little life won't end.
Or are you simply another braindead little fuckstain with no balls to prove what you are saying?
Quote from: Casparov on May 08, 2014, 01:47:05 AM
What have you to offer besides weak apologetics?
Don't talk about weak apologetic when you've yet to offer a single shred of evidence for your own point of view. You can offer "disproofs" of what you call materialism until you're blue in the face, but you will not sway one single damned person here until you present a viable alternative accompanied by evidence.
If we're not real, all the craps and farts I logged in to the crap and fart thread was for nothing. Right? What is the point????
:lol:
Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 10:49:08 PM
The fact that there cannot be said to be any mind-independent material is the proof that your material body cannot produce mind. That's the scientific proof at least.
It is not a fact that there cannot be said to be any mind-independant material. That is your conjecture and nothing more. It has not been scientifically proven and I would appreciate if you stopped lying about that. It doesn't become scientifically proven just because you keep repeating the same lie over and over.
QuoteThe philosophical proof is that you cannot doubt that your mind exists but you can absolutely doubt that external objective material exists. Therefore, you know that mind exists, but you do not know that objective material exists. To assert that objective material definitely does exist would be an assertion which requires proof.
We've already discussed this:
QuoteWhen referring to "I think therefore I am" you said " From there my only real next logical move is solipsism" and now you admit that you were wrong and that there are other logical assumptions. (In fact more logical than solipsism)
Materialism is in fact far far more logical than immaterialism. Why?
La Dolce Vita already pointed this out to you as follows:
"You do admit it "appears that way". That is all that count. If it appears a certain way then that's the most logical position to have. You need good reasons to deny something that clearly appears a certain way, and you do not."
Let me repeat what I've proven and that you continue to deny in vain... You have the burden of proof. Just accept it and move on.
So once again, you have the burden of proof when claiming something is an illusion.
QuoteIf you are going to hold to the claim that we exist in an objective material universe realize that you are making a positive claim that requires proof. Provide proof of your positive claim please.
If you are unable to pass your hand through what I claim is a solid material object... that is proof of its MATERIAL solidity. The proof of materialism is literally all around you.
If you claim that the solid material object is in fact "just an illusion"... YOU NOW HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF FOR YOUR
CLAIM OF ILLUSION.
QuoteI have already offered plenty of evidence that suggests we should doubt that your claim is true, yet you refuse do offer any evidence to support your claim about reality. You simply assert it as absolute undoubtable unquestionable Truth. (much like a religious person)
You have not offered any proof at all. You have only offered bold conjecture. Nothing more. I have offered proof. The experiment of passing your hand through a solid material object.
This is where your hypocrisy kicks in. You will now assert that this is not evidence because the illusion (which you just assume) is so compelling that we can't trust these "physical things" and yet, you offer up evidence from these same material things (like the apparatus used to test quantum) as proof that there are no physical things. It's hypocrisy whether you admit it or not.
QuoteWhat you don't seem to understand is that I am not saying that "nothing is real" I am just saying that the better explanation for our observations is a virtual reality produced by information processing. This conclusion can be arrived at without the assumption of Materialism. Science only requires information and an accepted research method with which to ask and answer questions about the information in question. Assuming Realism and Materialism are not a requirement of science.
Science is not philosophy. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of
testable explanations and predictions about the universe. The testing always involves material reality. That you really on interpretations of the results of these tests when it suits you and reject them out of hand when it doesn't is hypocrisy.
Do we exist? If the answer is yes (which it is), I say we are real.
I think, therefore i drink.................... :jook: