Have you read what I wrote in that thread...Godless said:
Atheism ( not a bad thing)
- Thread starter fahrenheit 451
- Start date
Ok, but that's not exactly the point I'm trying to pass. I'm discussing with him his first premise, which I see as wrong. He says "god" and "technology" are indistiguishble. I say they can be distiguished through careful examination.TheMatrixIsReal said:Truthseeker, it's not hard to understand. Like wes said, let's say I create virtual world, and I make it identical to this world. Then I kidnap you from your bedroom while you sleep, and I plug you in to it. You wakeup, everything looks the same, you are none the wiser, and you go on like nothing happened, because from your perspective nothing did. Yet in this virtual world I have complete and utter control. I am now God to you.
It is because of this possibility that God can never be proven. Let's say some guy floated down out of the sky right in front of you, accompanied by a bright light, telling you he was Christ coming for the second time. Then he started performing incredible miracles before your very eyes: healing the sick with his touch, turning water to wine, walking on water, everything Jesus supposedly did. Now, and here's the real mind bender, how do you know Jesus isn't me, the controller of the virtual world fucking with your mind. I control your senses remember, so I can make you see/hear/touch/taste/smell whatever I want you to. Trippy isn't it?
Ok. The Zen example can help with that. See there is a fish, and the fish live in the ocean. The fish doesn't know he lives in the ocean, because the fish never goes out of the ocean. For the fish, the ocean is all that exist, the universe. But if the fish jumps out of the water, he can see there's much more outside. And that's probably even be shocking for him (I'm not even going there)...
What I'm saying is that we are like the fish. We live in an ocean. The atheist look in the ocean and see all that is in it. He doesn't look up. However, the theist fish looks up, and wonders if there's something beyond. When the theist jump.... SURPRISE! There's something out there! But just one jump is not enough to allow the theist fish to see everything. So he tries to jump again. And I can tell you, it is not easy. Which is one of the reasons why it is hard for a theist fish to talk with an atheist fish.
So let's say the theist fish tries to explain the outside universe to the atheist fish. The first conflict will be - "where did you get this information?" And the theist fish would say - " Oh! From the outside world". And the atheist fish would reply "which outside world?" Well, and you can see where that leads. Then the second conflict would be with the evidence. The atheist fish will want to see the outside world searching for something in the inside world. And he is not going to find anything - so he won't believe in it. And any attempt to jump can be not very motivating for the atheist fish. So resolving this conflict is really hard.
There's also another kind of fish - the phlilosopher fish. And Mr. philosopher fish is kinda in between.
He will try to find something beyond this world. He will try to look at the whole and find something in the inner world that can relate to the outside world. This is all challenging for the phlilosopher fish because that requires the analytic and logical skills of the atheist and the insight and faith (not blind one) of the theist. The conflict is usually not resolved.I'm the philosopher fish trying to solve the conflict. I particularly have the insightful nature embeded in my personality. I still need to work with my logical skills (hence I'm on philosophy class). It's a very hard job where I have to do too much work by myself. But that's what any philosopher fish would do.
A similar metaphor is the parable of the cave, from Plato. It basically says that all people are chained inside this cave. There's light outside, but they cannot see it. However, they see the shadows that the light creates. They think those shadows are the truth. The philosopher tries to get free and see what is beyond the shadows.
This is the hardest quest in philosophy. What does our existence means? Who are we? Why are we here? Is there a reason? Is there a god?
If you just come and say "oh, we will never be able to find if there's a god" then you are just defeating yourself. The conflict cannot be resolved until you fight until the end. If you say it's impossible, you are just giving up. So I do my best to try to find a way to solve the conflict.
So, coming back to his first premise:
Unfortunately I cannot make diagrams here, but whatever...wesmorris said:
"You can't distinguish": The only way you can't possibly distinguish between two things is if those two things have the same essence. His claim is that it is impossible to distinguish. If it is impossible to distinguish then they must have the same essence. But that seems wrong. We know "god" is not equal to "technology". They have similar attributes, and that makes them hard to distinguish. But they are not the same.
The question is rather it is possible or not. I say it is possible, because they have two different essences that can be distinguished. Tha's basically what I'm saying.
*Have you read what I wrote in that thread
I could hardly recall, to be honest. However Wes was the thread starter I read somewhat, but decided not to continue participating & reading. Howeve something stuck in my head; people don't always percieve what you write, the way you intedended them to perceive as you intended. Hence it's hard to stay on topic in these threads. So we ended here!.
Godless.
I could hardly recall, to be honest. However Wes was the thread starter I read somewhat, but decided not to continue participating & reading. Howeve something stuck in my head; people don't always percieve what you write, the way you intedended them to perceive as you intended. Hence it's hard to stay on topic in these threads. So we ended here!.
Godless.
TMIR
Games will come were you plug in directly to virtual reality. N I'm afraid your correct, seen the nintendo craze, and play station games have become addictive to our kids.
I've seen in Las Vegas a game that you wear a helmet and you are virtually plugged in. However these games are extremely expencive for general population. But in the near future, you'd be wearing what looks like glasses, and having devise wired the sise of a walkman to your hip, and it will be a virtual game... Damn what's the topic?
Oh ya!! atheist ain't all that bad. see we like to play.
Godless.
Games will come were you plug in directly to virtual reality. N I'm afraid your correct, seen the nintendo craze, and play station games have become addictive to our kids.
I've seen in Las Vegas a game that you wear a helmet and you are virtually plugged in. However these games are extremely expencive for general population. But in the near future, you'd be wearing what looks like glasses, and having devise wired the sise of a walkman to your hip, and it will be a virtual game... Damn what's the topic?
Oh ya!! atheist ain't all that bad. see we like to play.
Godless.
Godless, I thought about your post for a couple of minutes, and I have a possible solution to your confusion. Her father did say that everything has a purpose, at least in the matrix. However, the war marked the end for the need for the matrix (ie, eventually every is to be unplugged and freed, in theory). Perhaps her "birth" signified a prophecy, a reality to which all the programs would come. If there is no more need to fool the humans into believing the matrix to be a real world, then there is no more purpose in the programs? If this is the case, then the little girl would be the first, a foreshadowing of coming events. All programs would then become like the little girl, no longer serving a purpose, but making their own purpose, and enjoying the beauty of their world.
Ahh!! However the "program" has power sort of like Neo inside the matrix. The Oracle asked the child, if she was responsible for the sunrise, and she smiled in agreement with out exchange of words. However one is led to believe she caused it. So she is also a "programer of activity inside the Matrix".
See it's the small details sometimes I pick up on movies, and this one got me thinking. There will probably be another movie. But who knows...
Godless.
You are saying that the real and virtual are the same thing. If they are not the same thing you should be able to distinguish between them. They would never be the same in every way (unless you believe virtual=real). There would always be something that would be distinguishable.TheMatrixIsReal said:
I suppose you believe that's a good argument. Why should I keep discussing with you? :bugeye:
How do you know it is possible? How did you come up with that? What are the chances that this is a true scenario?
*sigh....
Look for the psychological meaning...
"con·flict
n.
A state of open, often prolonged fighting; a battle or war.
A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash.
Psychology. A psychic struggle, often unconscious, resulting from the opposition or simultaneous functioning of mutually exclusive impulses, desires, or tendencies.
Opposition between characters or forces in a work of drama or fiction, especially opposition that motivates or shapes the action of the plot.
intr.v. con·flict·ed, con·flict·ing, con·flicts (kn-flkt)
To be in or come into opposition; differ.
Archaic. To engage in warfare. "
I totally didn't speak about warfare. I totally didn't speak about sides. I'm talking about a psychological issue that originates in our unconscious...
Yes, indeed...
No. You refuse to accept that it can be proved. I have shown very simple logical arguments that clearly show that it is impossible the fact that an indistinguishble virtual reality can exist. You simply cannot accept it or cannot comprehend it.
Sure. Too bad you are not mentally capable of discussing that. I do it in another way.
And I will try to make it more clear that it is possible to tell the difference.
Oh really? What about if I stop looking at the stupid painting and start studying my eye? Wouldn't I eventually find out that my eye is connected to a computer? Note I didn't use the word "essence", altough I could have...
Now let me explain my side of the argument. You have "god" and you have "technology". Given that we are really in a virtual world controlled by a sufficiently advanced technology, what if I keep improving my own technology? Wouldn't I have a sufficiently advanced technology at some point? Wouldn't I be able to recognize that I live in a virtual world? The fact is that if we know enough about our own universe, we would be able to understand what is really real and what is not.
The major fallacy in that premise is probably the appeal to ignorance.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.
You are basically arguing that there is no evidence.
Besides, what is the likelyhood of a vitual reality.....
Maybe I should talk with my philosophy teacher about that...
It's hard to get any simpler then that......
It's hard to get any simpler then that......
That is a good observation about the little girl, Godless, but there is another one that seems also unanswered, if you are correct. The oracle put the little girl under the protection of Seraph. If what you say about her is true, that she is another Neo-like character (though she a program rather than a human), then she would not need this protection, unless of course her powers and understanding were undeveloped. Except, though we never see her "copied," it is assumed that she and seraph are. But then what kind of power would this give to Smith? None conceivable beyond those powers attained by the "absorption" of all the other programs (ie, the architect, whom we also assume is "copied"). Unless of course the architect was never cpoied, then his creative capabilities within the matrix then would seem to have come from the girl, since who else could give it?
Beyond, truly many people say the other two were flops compared to the first. Well I don't think that they were, perhaps the other two were a bit more "confusing then the first" and the story line seemed to be taking a turn, for example. The second movie when we find Smith's replicating abilities, and tried to replicate Neo. Neo freaked! but was able to defeat him, on the third movie, when Smith finally kills Neo, He didn't even know himself what to expect. and the other Smith's were freaked?. LOL...Smith was expecting something. What could it have been?. I do expect another movie, or just keep watching the whole saga over again. LOL I bought them all. hehehe..
Godless.
Godless.
I agree, all three were great. Each one, I think, brought forth a different idea to light. The first was the question of reality, the second the question of identity and choice, the third speaks of consequence. Obviously these are my own summaries of the different philosophical aspects of the movies, and other will probably see things differently, but I think that's only an indication of the depth of these films. It'll take years before these movies are fully "deciphered." I think a good starting point though would be to examine Buddhist philosophy in-depth, since it seems that a majority of the philosophy presented in the movie is derived therein (which means the Buddhists have a head start ).
).TMIR;
It's complicating to explain to someone virtual reality, specially when they dont have a clue what virtual reality is. (not intended for Truth)
Anyhow I was trying to explain it, and the person didn't know what "virtual" actually meant, we were speaking of The Matrix movie, and I was trying to explain the premise of the movie. Well finally I just gave up on the individual the guy could not comprehend
no matter how simplistic my explanations got. JUST WATCH THE MOVIE!! was my final answer. LOL...
It's complicating to explain to someone virtual reality, specially when they dont have a clue what virtual reality is. (not intended for Truth)
Anyhow I was trying to explain it, and the person didn't know what "virtual" actually meant, we were speaking of The Matrix movie, and I was trying to explain the premise of the movie. Well finally I just gave up on the individual the guy could not comprehend
no matter how simplistic my explanations got. JUST WATCH THE MOVIE!! was my final answer. LOL...
Sorry about breaking it down again. It is just easier to write that way....
The conclusion seems to follow from the premises, but the fact that you are relying on probabilities is an indication that the argument is inductive, at its best; which unfortunately is not sufficient to support the claim that it is impossible to understand God.
All that sounds like "appeal to ignorance"....
Well, the probability of living in a matrix-like virtual world is crucial in the argument! Even if the argument is correct, it is still an inductive argument, which means that there is some probability that the conclusion is not correct! For example, if the probability of being able to build a matrix-like virtual world is 90%, it is likely that we live in one. If the probability is 5%, then it is unlikely that we live in one.TheMatrixIsReal said:
The conclusion seems to follow from the premises, but the fact that you are relying on probabilities is an indication that the argument is inductive, at its best; which unfortunately is not sufficient to support the claim that it is impossible to understand God.
Yes, and I believe it might be possible to build such device. However, there might be physical constraints that impeaches us from building such a device. Which is why it is important to know the probability of such a device to be built, given the laws of physics. There's a hidden premise in the argument that says that it might be possible to build such a device, but that makes the argument inductive as opposed to deductive. If it is not possible to build such a device, then the premise fails and the argument becomes invalid (given that that was a valid argument at all!).
I thought we were discussing the argument in this thread....
Well, I do believe there might be a possibility, but probability is not enough for me to accept the claim. It could be that the probability of such device is very small, which would make the probability of a virtual world close to impossible.
We can base our discussions on probabilities, but by no means you can say for sure that the arguments will turn out to be true!
We are free to do that as long as we don't claim that there is an 100% probability of it being true.
Which premise, exactly, would you like to discuss?
Even if that is true you still have to deal with the probability of that being possible.
All that sounds like "appeal to ignorance"....
I would like to continue the discussion. Do you understand that I cannot accept the claim that there is an 100% probability of the premise being true?
Did you guestimate that the same way you and wes guestimated the first premise?
There's nothing wrong with discussing the probability of the matrix being true. However, we cannot forget or deny that it might not be.
I understand this is not intended for me, but could you try to explain it to me? I just wanna know how you see it.Godless said:
(back to the "essences"....
no, I'm not going to use that word again...
)Ok Doki!!
Huge assumption!! we or an advanced civilization, create a digital world that we humans consive as reality. Everything you hear, touch, see, your senses perceive as real. Therefore, since humans use their senses outward to know their enviorement and instrospect all the information inward to the brain everything that you see, hear, touch seems real to you.
Therefore how can you tell if we are not, inside some computer mainframe larger than the whole of existence we have discovered thus far?. Theists like you believe that everything has order cause god commands it, what if god is the architect of such a capable computer mainframe?.. God being some dood in his lab with his computers running and all we see is the existence he/she has created!.
DEEEEEEPPPPPP
Godless.
TMIS and Godless,
Ok. I understand what you are saying. But even if we live in a virtual world, wouldn't it be real the fact that we live in a virtual world? Wouldn't reality be what is virtual? In this sense, wouldn't the virtual aspect of the world be just an attribute of reality as a whole?
Now that is epistemology!
Peace out! :m:
Ok. I understand what you are saying. But even if we live in a virtual world, wouldn't it be real the fact that we live in a virtual world? Wouldn't reality be what is virtual? In this sense, wouldn't the virtual aspect of the world be just an attribute of reality as a whole?
Now that is epistemology!
Peace out! :m: