Personal Philosophies

[Ditto8353 202]

This may get long and may ramble, but I will not delete anything as to preserve my thought process.

Human Existence

The greatest question that mankind continues to struggle with is the purpose for our existence. Why did we come to exist and why to we continue to exist?

The problem that most people have when they try to think on this subject is that they somehow believe that we are separate from the universe in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not follow the same guiding principles which affect the processes of the universe and the objects within. Humans are products of the universe and thus our actions and thoughts are also products of the universe.

Sidenote:

Seeing as humans are products of the universe, even a part of the universe in the same way that organic cells are a part of humans: humanity is the universe becoming self aware. There exists the possibility that humanity is in fact an attempt by the universe to learn about itself. The concept of the universe being a living being is no more outlandish than the concept of a human. Innumerable lifeless parts coming together in such a way to achieve life.

Since humans are a part of the universe and our thoughts and actions are governed by universal rules, it follows that similar universal rules should apply to other universal processes.

When you do something, it is done for one of two reasons: Want or Need. Need can be denied or ignored, but it requires significantly greater amounts of Want. In any case, your actions are driven by Want or Need. Even going to sleep early, without being tired, can be explained in such a manner:

You have Need of food which creates both a Want of theft and a Need of money. Most people will choose to obey this Need of money. (Similar branching will not be mentioned for simplicity.) Need of money -> Need of job -> Need to work -> Want of rest -> Need of sleep.

Thus it follows that prior to human existence, there existed either Want or Need for human existence.

The question should no longer be "Why do we exist?" But it should be "Were we birthed of Want or Need? And what caused the Want/Need?"

I believe that human existence was and continues to be needed, though I cannot begin to fathom the reason why.

[dunkleosteus 2,425]

As an atheist my beliefs are different. I believe that humanity and our concept of self and thought is merely a complex composition of simple chemical reactions in our brains. I believe that all of the complexity we observe is merely the interactions of micro systems on a huge scale.

I believe that the universe has no conscience, and does not experience "want" or "need" and these two concepts are human constructs that we apply to the basic instincts which are ingrained into our brains by natural selection which favoured traits of self-preservation over millions of years.

[Ditto8353 202]

Also atheist.

I must have been vague in my explanations. I supposed that's what I get for trying to maintain my thought process.

For example:

Why does a rock fall when you drop it? It needs to. This "need" is created by universal laws.

[dunkleosteus 2,425]

Also atheist.

I must have been vague in my explanations. I supposed that's what I get for trying to maintain my thought process.

For example:

Why does a rock fall when you drop it? I needs to. This need is created by universal laws.

I would not say it "needs to" as need as a concept can't be applied in that way. It's not a law in the sense of obey or else, its a law because it happens.

If we accept gravity, without getting into the semantics of zero gravity or something, the rock falls because two objects that have mass at a sufficient proximity to each other experience a noticeable force between them.

I watched a very interesting program that showed how a visual matrix could be used to represent the universe. It was generated by an algorithm consisting of a series of permutations on a pattern and it created such diversity that mathematicians wanted to see how far they could take it. Eventually, they managed to generate a matrix whose patterns and properties could be interpretted properly to exactly represent the effects of gravity, weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force. By this logic, they concluded that there is some permutation of patterns or algorithms outthere that represents our universe's matrix, and what CREATES all of the processes we can observe.

This is partially what gives me my philosophy that everything is just expressions of simple processes. By this way, a rock falls not because it NEEDS to, but because it is the way of the universe, the direction along the matrix in which all matter exists. There is no other way, (excluding holding the rock by applying another force).

This means that a rock falling is no more a matter of choice or NEED than the concept that true = true, one of the most basic concepts of human logic.

[Deviator 51]

...

I believe that human existence was and continues to be needed, though I cannot begin to fathom the reason why.

Why are we here? Plastic

[Ditto8353 202]

Philosophy and Physics with Professor Dunk

[dunkleosteus 2,425]

Philosophy and Physics with Professor Dunk

damn right

also, is it difficult to be atheist in texas?

[Ditto8353 202]

damn right

also, is it difficult to be atheist in texas?

It's generally difficult in the United States.

I just find it to be annoying though, not really difficult. It's pretty easy to understand that most of these people are just wrong.

[Deviator 51]

damn right

also, is it difficult to be atheist in texas?

Only if you run down the street shouting about it. As long as you keep to the shadows, you will be alright

[dunkleosteus 2,425]

It's generally difficult in the United States.

I just find it to be annoying though, not really difficult. It's pretty easy to understand that most of these people are just wrong.

It;s so diverse up here that there isn't any one religion that dominates the culture (unless you count Christmas as christian)

People generally don't have a problem with atheism because it's just one more system of belief here.

[Ditto8353 202]

Only if you run down the street shouting about it. As long as you keep to the shadows, you will be alright

We could start a shadow cult.

[dunkleosteus 2,425]

We could start a shadow cult.

That probably won't help you convince anyone that you aren't Satan's minions or whatever they believe...

[Ditto8353 202]

That probably won't help you convince anyone that you aren't Satan's minions or whatever they believe...

Ever read the story of Lucifer? He's pretty much the only reasonable guy in that whole series.

[dunkleosteus 2,425]

Ever read the story of Lucifer? He's pretty much the only reasonable guy in that whole series.

Saying that probably doesn't help either...

[scrdest 24]

As an atheist my beliefs are different. I believe that humanity and our concept of self and thought is merely a complex composition of simple chemical reactions in our brains. I believe that all of the complexity we observe is merely the interactions of micro systems on a huge scale.

I believe that the universe has no conscience, and does not experience "want" or "need" and these two concepts are human constructs that we apply to the basic instincts which are ingrained into our brains by natural selection which favoured traits of self-preservation over millions of years.

Just to annoy people with semantics, this position is called reductionism. I agree with it, postulating any extra-physical force that is devoted to enabling you to think is silly, especially since it is possible to see what happens when normal reactions in brain are working abnormally - in fact, a concept of some sort of 'mindium', a substance that let's you think, would have to accept you can cut out some of the 'mindium' out from the body by carefully cutting some neural connections in the brain, for example in lobotomy.

Furthermore, some procedures would have to be able to duplicate or split the 'mindium' in half - people who had corpus callosum, a connection between left and right part of brain cut (used to be done to treat epilepsy) showed interesting results, like left hand trying to hit someone and right trying to stop it.

It isn't too hard to demonstrate, that a simple set of rules can lead to interesting second-tier rules - google 'Conway's Game of Life' to see such example.

As for the question why do we continue to exist: because we implicitly agree to do so. Go on, do nothing (including, say, breathing) at all long enough. Or not, because you'd be dead then. You don't actually 'need' to do anything - when you deobfuscate, so to say, 'need' , it becomes a condition: for example, 'you need to breathe' is actually (I believe a programmer could put it better):

IF Breathing=1

Life(Human)=1

ELSE Life(Human)=0

So, life (of a human in this case, since not all organisms need oxygen) is present only if you continue breathing. 'Want' is the value that you assign as the result of the function (for example, non-suicidal human is trying to find a such value of IsBreathing that results in a value of IsAlive equalling 1).

Ever read the story of Lucifer? He's pretty much the only reasonable guy in that whole series.

Which story? Dante's Inferno? Milton's Paradise Lost? Either way, for all the merit, it's basically fanfiction of the Bible (amusingly, if you'd happen to believe in Bible being true, that would make it fanfiction of fanfiction). IIRC his description in the Bible is pretty bland, mostly being sent to ruin guy's shit and happening to make a wager with God on what said guy will do (that's pretty mean, doesn't it? You send a lackey to ruin a man's life to make a bet.)

[transcengopher 349]

Speculative nature of question "Does God exist?" was shown by I.Kant in 1781 and then doubled by B.Russel in 1925. Apparently, this doesn't stop arguments.

[dunkleosteus 2,425]

Just to annoy people with semantics, this position is called reductionism. I agree with it, postulating any extra-physical force that is devoted to enabling you to think is silly, especially since it is possible to see what happens when normal reactions in brain are working abnormally - in fact, a concept of some sort of 'mindium', a substance that let's you think, would have to accept you can cut out some of the 'mindium' out from the body by carefully cutting some neural connections in the brain, for example in lobotomy.

Furthermore, some procedures would have to be able to duplicate or split the 'mindium' in half - people who had corpus callosum, a connection between left and right part of brain cut (used to be done to treat epilepsy) showed interesting results, like left hand trying to hit someone and right trying to stop it.

It isn't too hard to demonstrate, that a simple set of rules can lead to interesting second-tier rules - google 'Conway's Game of Life' to see such example.

As for the question why do we continue to exist: because we implicitly agree to do so. Go on, do nothing (including, say, breathing) at all long enough. Or not, because you'd be dead then. You don't actually 'need' to do anything - when you deobfuscate, so to say, 'need' , it becomes a condition: for example, 'you need to breathe' is actually (I believe a programmer could put it better):

IF Breathing=1

Life(Human)=1

ELSE Life(Human)=0

So, life (of a human in this case, since not all organisms need oxygen) is present only if you continue breathing. 'Want' is the value that you assign as the result of the function (for example, non-suicidal human is trying to find a such value of IsBreathing that results in a value of IsAlive equalling 1).

Which story? Dante's Inferno? Milton's Paradise Lost? Either way, for all the merit, it's basically fanfiction of the Bible (amusingly, if you'd happen to believe in Bible being true, that would make it fanfiction of fanfiction). IIRC his description in the Bible is pretty bland, mostly being sent to ruin guy's shit and happening to make a wager with God on what said guy will do (that's pretty mean, doesn't it? You send a lackey to ruin a man's life to make a bet.)

you used = as a comparison operator and as a setter.

In java it would like like this:

life = breathing;

because that's all you're doing...

if you wanted to do it properly:

Human human = new Human();

if( human.getBreathing()){

human.setLife(true);

}

else{

human.setLife(false);

}

[transcengopher 349]

Thread HumanLife = new Thread();

HumanLife.start(){

Human human = new Human(new Conditions());

while(1){

if (!human.Conditions.isBreathing()){

human.setDead();

break;

}

HumanLife.stop();

}

EDIT:

And this one. I cannot believe you guys made me to find it.

[puxapuak 232]

Mass multi-quote time! Only four, actually.

The greatest question that mankind continues to struggle with is the purpose for our existence. Why did we come to exist and why to we continue to exist?

I think the real question is why does there need to be a purpose? Until one establishes the need for a purpose, then the other questions are without a reference frame.

http://winesoakedrevelations.org/blog/puxapuak/simple-philosophy

As an atheist my beliefs are different. I believe that humanity and our concept of self and thought is...

I totally agree, except that it is a belief. It is more the base state, because it need not assume anything. Disbelief is akin to belief, but the lack of belief is neither; just an acceptance of one's own ignorance of things presently unknowable. So what you presented seems to me to be the base case - it is the only thing that we have any positive evidence of, and so it doesn't really require any belief, only to accept that until further evidence is presented, there's not much point going further.

That always struck me as a little funny about religion. They say it is an act of humility to bow before a deity, yet it is really the exact opposite. It's an act of pure ego to assert that your view is universally correct despite having no evidence to show anyone. (But then we get into post-modernism and its convenient solution: everyone lives in their own bubble universe. *sigh*)

...This is partially what gives me my philosophy that everything is just expressions of simple processes. ...

That reminded me a lot of something I like to remind my students of. If it's so believable that a computer can do all the amazing things they do when ultimately it is doing nothing but moving 1s and 0s around, why is it so unbelievable that our incredibly error-prone, distractable, and forgetful mind could arise from a brain that isn't doing much more complicated, just on a much larger scale? I think people forget what computers are sometimes.

It;s so diverse up here that there isn't any one religion that dominates the culture (unless you count Christmas as christian)

People generally don't have a problem with atheism because it's just one more system of belief here.

Depends where you live... not all of Canada is like that. I'm not too far from the edge of Bible Belt North. It is pretty hard to find other atheists here, and the topic is generally discouraged because of the particular brand of Christianity that is popular.

[dunkleosteus 2,425]

Mass multi-quote time! Only four, actually.

I think the real question is why does there need to be a purpose? Until one establishes the need for a purpose, then the other questions are without a reference frame.

http://winesoakedrev...mple-philosophy

I totally agree, except that it is a belief. It is more the base state, because it need not assume anything. Disbelief is akin to belief, but the lack of belief is neither; just an acceptance of one's own ignorance of things presently unknowable. So what you presented seems to me to be the base case - it is the only thing that we have any positive evidence of, and so it doesn't really require any belief, only to accept that until further evidence is presented, there's not much point going further.

That always struck me as a little funny about religion. They say it is an act of humility to bow before a deity, yet it is really the exact opposite. It's an act of pure ego to assert that your view is universally correct despite having no evidence to show anyone. (But then we get into post-modernism and its convenient solution: everyone lives in their own bubble universe. *sigh*)

That reminded me a lot of something I like to remind my students of. If it's so believable that a computer can do all the amazing things they do when ultimately it is doing nothing but moving 1s and 0s around, why is it so unbelievable that our incredibly error-prone, distractable, and forgetful mind could arise from a brain that isn't doing much more complicated, just on a much larger scale? I think people forget what computers are sometimes.

Depends where you live... not all of Canada is like that. I'm not too far from the edge of Bible Belt North. It is pretty hard to find other atheists here, and the topic is generally discouraged because of the particular brand of Christianity that is popular.

thats true. Being Caucasian makes you an ethnic minority here though lol

[puxapuak 232]

thats true. Being Caucasian makes you an ethnic minority here though lol

Heheh yeah. Caucasian is minority where I spend most of my time (my neighbourhood and the Uni) but certainly not the rest of the city. No wonder I prefer the uni lol. That will change soon though... another ten years maybe and we'll look more like Toronto if this growth rate holds up.

[Ditto8353 202]

Side note.

I don't remember if it is impossible or nearly impossible to make an argument for or against the existence of "God" without committing a logical fallacy. Either way...

The most common is the False Authority fallacy. Any reference to religious text, good or bad, commits this fallacy.

[Ditto8353 202]

That reminded me a lot of something I like to remind my students of. If it's so believable that a computer can do all the amazing things they do when ultimately it is doing nothing but moving 1s and 0s around, why is it so unbelievable that our incredibly error-prone, distractable, and forgetful mind could arise from a brain that isn't doing much more complicated, just on a much larger scale? I think people forget what computers are sometimes.

:3 The best part is that they aren't even moving around 1's and 0's. They are simply obeying various laws of physics. Conductors, semi-conductors, and insulators are just arranged in such a way that Physics itself is capable of math.

[puxapuak 232]

I don't remember if it is impossible or nearly impossible to make an argument for or against the existence of "God" without committing a logical fallacy.

...

The best part is that they aren't even moving around 1's and 0's.

Well an argument for God is a fact-claim about the universe so it requires positive evidence, and that's where things run into issues because so far every piece of evidence or logical proof has ultimately been tautological (requiring the belief in God in order to accept the fact of it). But arguments that God *can't* exist are also impossible because that is trying to prove a negative. That's why it is perfectly reasonable for an atheist to say, on the matter of the existence of any particular deity, I don't know and that doesn't make them agnostic or otherwise any less of an atheist. But that doesn't mean we can't do a decent guess at the odds too - something a lot of people are saying lately is that it's 50/50 odds of god existing if there's no evidence for or against. That's simply not so. Humans have conceived thousands, if not millions of gods, and most of them are incompatible with each other. I wouldn't want to bet the activities of my life on million-to-one odds.

Regarding moving 1s and 0s, perhaps that is a colloquialism. People use that phrase in programming and math circles around here to refer to 'the simplest possible maths'. But even in terms of the physics, it is reasonable to say it is "moving" in the same sense that we perceive lateral movement of water that has waves. The waves (1s and 0s) are moving, but the water is stationary. In this case it's just current waves, in which case there actually are electrons on the move.

[scrdest 24]

Thread HumanLife = new Thread();

HumanLife.start(){

Human human = new Human(new Conditions());

while(1){

if (!human.Conditions.isBreathing()){

human.setDead();

break;

}

HumanLife.stop();

}

EDIT:

And this one. I cannot believe you guys made me to find it.

This. And thanks for fixing it Dunk, it was supposed to be pseudocode anyway, but at least it's a proper pseudocode now .