Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 4:38 pm
+1Deucal wrote:this always makes me feel better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgzHrI61 ... FxchrMAD6s
btw, wear sunscreen.
Discussions about Silent Computing
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/
https://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=58828
+1Deucal wrote:this always makes me feel better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgzHrI61 ... FxchrMAD6s
btw, wear sunscreen.
You missed my point by at least a mile.So why can't we kill people? Who made these rules? For what purpose? Is there a purpose?
Again you miss the point, you can spend a long time thinking about whether or not humans should "exist", but your thinking is fatally flawed, we do exist, so why question whether or not we should.Someone actually feels like the human race should exist on this planet? Why? Read my previous post.
Where did you get that crazy idea from, self preservation exists in all creatures whether or not they are clever like us, so that point goes up in flames. And again our purpose is not to reproduce and spread, we dont have a purpose, we exist, and yes we do reproduce and spread, open your eyes to Darwinian natural selection, every living organism on this planet and those that date back for the last ~2 billion years has done exactly that, its not a purpose, its simply "life".We developed the ability to think for the purpose or preserving this life. And that's the only purpose humans have, reproduce and spread.
I never said that such purpose is exclusively for humans. It's the purpose of every organism. Maybe we should discuss what the word 'purpose' means. I'm talking about the purpose as a species, not on individual level. It's tattoo'd to our brain that reproduction is the pinnacle of life. Everything in our bodies is telling us to reproduce but some of us want to fight back and not give in.andyb wrote:You missed my point by at least a mile.So why can't we kill people? Who made these rules? For what purpose? Is there a purpose?
THERE IS NO POINT, we were NOT created, we exist because we do, get on and live your life and stop whinging about not having a point, if you want one think one up and do that.
Again you miss the point, you can spend a long time thinking about whether or not humans should "exist", but your thinking is fatally flawed, we do exist, so why question whether or not we should.Someone actually feels like the human race should exist on this planet? Why? Read my previous post.
Where did you get that crazy idea from, self preservation exists in all creatures whether or not they are clever like us, so that point goes up in flames. And again our purpose is not to reproduce and spread, we dont have a purpose, we exist, and yes we do reproduce and spread, open your eyes to Darwinian natural selection, every living organism on this planet and those that date back for the last ~2 billion years has done exactly that, its not a purpose, its simply "life".We developed the ability to think for the purpose or preserving this life. And that's the only purpose humans have, reproduce and spread.
Andy
http://www.theonion.com/articles/cost-o ... efits,1316Cost Of Living Now Outweighs Benefits
WASHINGTON, DC—A report released Monday by the Federal Consumer Quality-Of-Life Control Board indicates that the cost of living now outstrips life's benefits for many Americans.
"This is sobering news," said study director Jack Farness. "For the first time, we have statistical evidence of what we've suspected for the past 40 years: Life really isn't worth living."
So where's the receiptPlanetOfTheApes wrote:Life is NOT a gift.
So you decided to stay plenty busy I see.My purpose is to roam SPCR forums and comment on topics I deem moronic.
And we delude ourselves in order to cope, then hop on our little hamster wheel and chase the dragon. The fact is that life for most people is very costly (suffering) and then you die, for no innate purpose. Life is an imposition and the risk is not yours to take; procreation is playing Russian roulette with somebody else's life.Fayd wrote: quality of life is better for most people than it has ever been in history.
and yet those people complain
Then you don't understand the difference between continuation of a life and the question of starting/creating life.Fayd wrote: btw, if life sucks and isn't worth living, then die. "and decrease the surplus population!"
Really, do you think someone like Derek (see below) would find this topic funny?Fayd wrote: topics like these always strike me as funny.
Workers doing productive work create wealth.aristide1 wrote: Signature: Jobs create wealth, not the other way around
There isn't one. Why does there need to be?PlanetOfTheApes wrote:The search for a rational, ethical reason for creating another human goes on without success.
Given that life serves no innate purpose, a rational person would choose not to reproduce because it can be rationally argued that procreation is unethical.There isn't one. Why does there need to be?
The human organism's high intelligence is able to transcend blind obedience to a DNA molecule or to dogmaIt's just what organisms do isn't it?
You're forgetting that 99.99% (or more) of people are not purely and entirely rational. Thankfully.PlanetOfTheApes wrote:Hi judge
Given that life serves no innate purpose, a rational person would choose not to reproduce because it can be rationally argued that procreation is unethical.There isn't one. Why does there need to be?
A child does not benefit by being brought into existence, because you can't deprive someone who doesn't exist. Once born, the child will experience negative states of existence (harm) and certain death. Some of these children/victims will experience the greatest horrors life has to offer, such as birth defects, childhood cancer, elephant man disease, severe mental illness or retardation, loss, tragic accidents, wars, the list is endless. Procreation is an imposition, a selfish act of aggression. You're gambling with someone else's welfare, and the risk is not yours to take.
The human organism's high intelligence is able to transcend blind obedience to a DNA molecule or to dogmaIt's just what organisms do isn't it?
Maybe your premise is incorrect.PlanetOfTheApes wrote:Given that life serves no innate purpose, a rational person would choose not to reproduce because it can be rationally argued that procreation is unethical.
That's more than materialism: that's physicalism. There is a middle-ground between monistic idealism and physicalism.TalkinHorse wrote:if you accept the implicit premise of materialism. That is, if life is purely an artifact of matter and energy and physical laws
That's one of the reasonable interpretations of QM, not a fact.TalkinHorse wrote:The Newtonian universe was deterministic, but quantum mechanics changed that view. We now understand that quantum events are governed by chance rather than cause-and-effect. Therefore, the foundation is reality is fluid rather than predetermined.
You seem to be mixing up different ideas. Sometimes they go under the same name but you need to pay more attention to the context.TalkinHorse wrote:However, statistical uncertainty does not allow for the phenomenon of free will, which would imply an effect without a cause. We subjectively experience free will, but the notion is contrary to science. So what's true? Some atheists argue that free will is merely an illusion. I understand the argument, but it seems to spring out of denial.
I would go one step further, your entire argument is rubbish.Maybe your premise is incorrect.
Just because there are questions that are unanswerable in a definitive way (why am I here?, where am I going?, what is the meaning of life?) does not mean they are rubbish, it just means there may not be any final answers that we can achieve in this life, and certainly not one that can be apprehended by reason alone (as Immanuel Kant point out long ago).andyb wrote:I would go one step further, your entire argument is rubbish.
If you were to replace the word "purpose" with something else your argument might make a little bit of sense, but we are part of "nature", and as you might/might not be aware "nature" does not have a "purpose"....
Thus your entire argument is not even moot, it is a question that cannot actually be asked as it is.
Come up with a real question that is answerable and I will give you an answer.
Andy
I agree with HFat here. There are many reasonable interpretations of free will that are not mutually exclusive with science as we currently know it.HFat wrote:You seem to be mixing up different ideas. Sometimes they go under the same name but you need to pay more attention to the context.TalkinHorse wrote:However, statistical uncertainty does not allow for the phenomenon of free will, which would imply an effect without a cause. We subjectively experience free will, but the notion is contrary to science. So what's true? Some atheists argue that free will is merely an illusion. I understand the argument, but it seems to spring out of denial.
Free will does not contradict the kind of determinism you can study scientifically (unless you take some unscientific assumptions for granted). People who argue along these lines are usually engaged in circular reasoning because their assumptions contradict free will to begin with.
Free will is definitely not "contrary to science" (what kind of epistemology are you using?). It can resist scientific investigation without being an epiphenomenon. It can be an epiphenomenon without being illusory. It can be illusory without being superflous. None of this can be trivially ruled out or demonstrated. Physicalists might say these are mere disctinctions but according to other points of view, there are significant differences. Make sure you understand this before calling people denialists.
There are also religions which profess determinism by the way.
The answer to the classic "why am I here" questions can be answered, however the answer will take longer to compile with any detail than it will take for that life to end.Just because there are questions that are unanswerable in a definitive way (why am I here?, where am I going?, what is the meaning of life?) does not mean they are rubbish, it just means there may not be any final answers that we can achieve in this life, and certainly not one that can be apprehended by reason alone
You say that the world exists because of the Big Bang (probably correct on one superficial level), but you have not answered the question as to "why" the Big Bang happened, or if it was created by some preceding physical process, why was that created?andyb wrote:The answer to the classic "why am I here" questions can be answered, however the answer will take longer to compile with any detail than it will take for that life to end.
In a very simple way here I go (forgive me for any obvious missing steps).
Big-Bang, stars go supernova, some of that supernova material groups together, our star is born with some of that ex-supernova material - called earth, chemistry produces pre-life material, RNA or something similar evolves, DNA evolves from RNA, complex life begins to evolve, humans evolve, 2 people meet up and have sex, you are born, THE END.
That is why "you are here" in a very basic description, that is also why I am here (but with different parents).
As you see that question is very answerable, the "purpose" of you or me cannot be answered anywhere near as easily as that, and I will continue to argue that the word "purpose" in this example is used specifically by god-fearing nutters, so that they can persuade other people to fear-dog and by definition "be nutty". It is one of those questions that is designed to be unanswerable by anyone who DOES NOT believe in the super-natural - and those that do make up some shit because god told them that they "must have a purpose".
No human being that has ever been born has a "purpose" in that context at all. In a slightly different context it amazingly simply to answer and goes back to RNA (or whatever it was that evolved from a chemical soup - or whatever it evolved from), RNA and DNA do one single thing exceptionally well - they create identical copies of themselves - that is their "purpose" to reproduce. That is the most basic and only true answer to the non-religious "purpose" question.
Andy
I don't have to, and we will likely never know, our ancestors might, but there is a good chance that they will never will know. That is a much better un-answerable question, as yet there are only "theorems" that's like a "theory" to people who can't read a dictionary - there is no single definitive answer - and as I say we may never know, we as in "the human species".but you have not answered the question as to "why" the Big Bang happened, or if it was created by some preceding physical process, why was that created?
No, does not keep me awake at night. I agree that we will never know (at least not by your definition of "knowledge"). But just because I don't know something, doesn't mean it does not exist.andyb wrote:I don't have to, and we will likely never know, our ancestors might, but there is a good chance that they will never will know. That is a much better un-answerable question, as yet there are only "theorems" that's like a "theory" to people who can't read a dictionary - there is no single definitive answer - and as I say we may never know, we as in "the human species".
Does that keep you awake at night.?
Andy
Well, if a model based on physical properties could actually predict with decent statistical significance the behaviour of a population you'd have a pretty good case against some types of free will.lhopitalified wrote:At best, they may be able to come up with an optimal stochastic model, but who is to say it is "actual randomness" and not "free will" that is determining the outcome? It's not like you can observe the other universes where my free will / cosmic coin flip swung the other way...
It makes sense at a totally rational level - but only withing the parameters of what it talks about.The benatarian argument
This is a much less convincing argument that is again totally void of "humanity" and all of those needs wants and desires.The imposition argument