RE: Indoctrination

RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 7:02:16 PM)
Sleep well and wake, Peon. And as for the joke, I got it, but ever the pedant I am: I'd tend to step off the rails first, then derail (pun not intended) the conversation (unless it was interesting) into something on the relative merits and demerits of the choice, which would break down something like this: Cost of staying on the tracks in non-solipsist scenario: life. Cost of leaving the tracks in non-solipsist scenario: none. Cost of staying on the tracks in solipsist scenario: unknown, at minimum life as I know it. Cost of leaving the tracks in solipsist scenario: unknown, but also unchanged. Probability of either scenario being correct: unknown. So, either way there's a cost of "everything I know" to staying on the tracks, and no additional cost to leaving the tracks over the status quo. Besides, unless I have some evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to go with "this life is fascinating and my preservation instincts are probably there for a reason". Seems a pretty clear cut choice to me. I mean, can anyone come up with a scenario where solipsism dramatically changes the outcome in favor of doing something crazy for any other reason than satisfying one's curiosity about something that either way probably couldn't be communicated to anyone else (if indeed anyone else exists, which is a moot point for me, as I like interacting whether people do exist or not)? I haven't really put my mind to it, but no examples spring to mind. IWYW, — Aswad.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/5/2012 7:50:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I was just picturing you saying all that to me, as you're standing on the railway track watching the train coming towards you, but finishing with, 'Right, now I think I'll step out of the way of this train'. This whole issue started over 400 posts ago, when Vincent opined that if there's no way to prove something then we're back to faith, whereupon I responded by observing: What's this "back" to faith business? When did we ever leave it behind? Science itself is a faith-based enterprise. There is no way to prove the existence of an external reality. And that statement is entirely and precisely correct. We have no way of proving there is an objective reality that exists independently of consciousness. But the operative concept here is proof. Nobody is saying that there isn't an objective reality that exists independently of consciousness, only that we cannot prove it. It was at this point that Vincent, rolling his eyes, trotted out the train analogy to demonstrate the absurdity of anyone disagreeing with him. But it's a wholly spurious bit of nonsense, despite the fact that certain individuals still feel compelled to keep repeating it 400 posts later. The fact of the matter is, you will jump out of the way of an oncoming train in a dream just as quickly, and I would invite anyone who wants to argue this as proof that dream trains are real to please raise their hand so the pretty nurse will know who needs meds. Turn it anyway you like, the experience remain the same. What happens if you witness someone else being hit by a train in a dream? They're dead, and the dream goes on. What happens if you are the one hit by the train? The dream ends, but you don't. Much as it appear to be self-evident that the external world is real, we have exactly the same experience of a world that is real when we're dreaming. We can even dream that we are conducting scientific experiments, the results being observed and duly corroborated by other scientists. Hell, we can even dream that our neural activity is being monitored and that it "proves" we're awake! Not to put too fine a point on it, we simply take it on faith that the world is real and get on with life. K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 1:49:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad And as for the joke, I got it, but ever the pedant I am: There wasn't really a joke, as such. The image just popped into my head and I found it funny - that's all. (Doesn't that happen to others when they're ready to sleep?) For what it's worth: part of why it was funny was that you looked like Orson Welles in the image.

PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 4:27:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Sleep well and wake, Peon. But thanks for that. I hope you sleep well, and wake, too.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 4:31:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer But thanks for that. I hope you sleep well, and wake, too. The waking part is what's important. [:D] K.

PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 5:06:41 AM)
Yes, that was what I thought the joke was. [:D].

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 5:10:03 AM)
quote: Much as it appear to be self-evident that the external world is real, we have exactly the same experience of a world that is real when we're dreaming. However, we dream 'realities' that we experience only while awake, so unless you are smoking some funny shit your dreams are only an extention (or a reimagination) of your real world experiences. Either individually or as a community, we validate the existence of the real world by repeated experiences over time to increase the probabilities it is there, and until the incremental calculus reduces to the elimination of denial. In a more rigorous fashion science is a process of reducing the gap between out internal monologue and the reality of matter and energy. The operative feature in science as in thoughtful everyday experience is "prediction." We know out theory of the reality is correct and that we are in fact experiencing that reality if our predictions about it are repeatedly correct. We know the moon is not a mirage because we have successfully predicted the arrival of several space craft to its surface.

Edwynn -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 9:43:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: These post-modern thinkers you speak of, to whatever degree correct, are not going back far enough, they are speaking to that one transition alone. It is obvious in reading the first religious texts that a number of "secular" items were 'smuggled in' to that process. The problem is that the further back one goes prior to 1440 [Guttenberg] the less reliable are the tracts that were laboriously hand copied by scribes, and often only fragments survive. So, there is a great deal of uncertainty about ancient religious texts, don't you agree? The point was that transition to the Enlightenment gives but one example of societal transitions, nothing more. Regardless what the 'original texts' actually said or didn't, a significant transition took place, and world history and anthropology give ample evidence of societies existing long before written history, such which could not have arisen in the absence of a civil code of some sort. Others can argue whether 'the first civil code' was "secular" or "religious" in nature if they like, but I think such neat and tidy distinction would not be recognizable to those earliest civilizations. quote: quote: In any case, humans are innately curious and innately social, and the desire to understand the world (universe) and the need to find a way to deal with each other are what begat religion and philosophy. As well as power, war, and slavery. I wonder if you give intellectual curiosity too much credit in the neat and tidy development of social institutions, which I doubt were really neat and tidy. Well, even current social institutions, religions, philosophies, and science are hardly neat and tidy, I think. Just rhetorical musings. [:)] No, I didn't give curiosity too much credit for social institutions. The attentive reader would have recognized "the need to deal with each other" in that sentence as being the fount of social institutions. The concerns of power did not create philosophy or exploration ofspiritual awareness or a desire for civil codes. Power seekers take what social rules as exist and twist them to their purpose, which certainly can include creating new variants on a pre-existing theme. Constantine and Clovis did not create any religion, the co-opted what was in place and expanded them to expand their power.

Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 4:28:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Doesn't that happen to others when they're ready to sleep? It does indeed. And the rest of the time, too. [:D] quote: For what it's worth: part of why it was funny was that you looked like Orson Welles in the image. Well, that is funny, and a little flattering, actually. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 4:42:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML However, we dream 'realities' that we experience only while awake, so unless you are smoking some funny shit your dreams are only an extention (or a reimagination) of your real world experiences. ~sigh~ When you're dreaming, you're experiencing a virtual reality that your brain fabricates for itself, and you're not aware it's virtual. On those occasions where you are aware that it's vitual, you're doing what's called lucid dreaming, which most people essentially never do. In a dream where you're not aware that it's virtual, you treat it like reality, and it seems real to your sleeping mind. It's possible to dream that you're dreaming, as well, and to wake up from the dream in the dream into the ordinary dream. Should there be an outside reality in which this reality is but a dream or the like, you would be no more aware of it than you are in any other dream, and your outside physiology might not even support any means of determining that the dream is a dream. You might be one of seven trillion people living on some world you're currently not remembering, like in most dreams, and a third of them would dream similarly complicated dreams that wouldn't be in touch with yours in any way unless their physiologies support that. quote: Either individually or as a community, we validate the existence of the real world by repeated experiences over time to increase the probabilities it is there, and until the incremental calculus reduces to the elimination of denial. We can get accustomed to anything, including things that make absolutely no sense. That's a uniquely human capacity. Ravens cannot adapt to a reality that doesn't make sense, whereas humans do not experience any difficulties with it. That we increasingly trust what we're used to is one of the major bias forming mechanisms in humanity, and accounts for some of our difficulties in dealing with changes that proceed too quickly. quote: We know out theory of the reality is correct and that we are in fact experiencing that reality if our predictions about it are repeatedly correct. We assume it's correct, and ascribe ever more trust when we see our predictions coming true. This is a mechanism with known faults, which is why science is a lot more rigorous. Confirmation bias isn't something that just happens to religious folk. quote: We know the moon is not a mirage because we have successfully predicted the arrival of several space craft to its surface. Actually, we assume the moon is not a mirage because we trust that those space craft arrived there, seeing as we didn't go ourselves. We, in turn, trust that the people that told us were telling the truth and that those people aren't themselves mirages. Me, I just had a look at it moving across the sky and figured "hmm... real enough for me." If I ever need to depend on it for something, like a colony, I'll have a closer look. And, yes, I do expect to find it to be there, as described. If it ain't, I'll shrug and say, "oh, well." As with anything else. IWYW, — Aswad.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 5:07:33 PM)
quote: ~sigh~ How fucking condescending[8\|] quote: When you're dreaming, you're experiencing a virtual reality that your brain fabricates for itself, and you're not aware it's virtual. Let's get together on definitions. A virtual reality is one in which distinct individuals communicate with one another in a faux community like Facebook or CM. What exactly do you mean by the term? My point was that our dreams are made of the stuff we experience in our waking moments either directly through our senses [given that we filter sensations and patterns through emotions and past associations] or indirectly through what we read or learn. Your brain fabricates dreams out of real life experiences. Please do let me know if you are aware of any group of people who dream unique objects and/or who communicate with other people while they are dreaming. quote: Should there be an outside reality in which this reality is but a dream or the like, you would be no more aware of it than you are in any other dream, and your outside physiology might not even support any means of determining that the dream is a dream. You might be one of seven trillion people living on some world you're currently not remembering, like in most dreams, and a third of them would dream similarly complicated dreams that wouldn't be in touch with yours in any way unless their physiologies support that. I try to be open to most things on these boards because I learn a lot, but really you are just making up this fantastical shit. quote: We can get accustomed to anything, including things that make absolutely no sense. That's a uniquely human capacity. Ravens cannot adapt to a reality that doesn't make sense, whereas humans do not experience any difficulties with it. That we increasingly trust what we're used to is one of the major bias forming mechanisms in humanity, and accounts for some of our difficulties in dealing with changes that proceed too quickly. I will agree that bias confirmation is a human frailty. That is why science deals in probabilities, strives for best fit models and falsifiable hypothesis. quote: Actually, we assume the moon is not a mirage because we trust that those space craft arrived there, seeing as we didn't go ourselves. This is such a self-evident comment it hardly merits a reply. ~sigh~

PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 5:14:43 PM)
FR Gentlemen All, Many moons ago I took part in a seminar on post-modern thinking and the possibility, or otherwise, of 'knowing reality'. It was done with reference to the film, The Matrix. I'm wondering if referring to that film might help matters here? Just a thought.

Moonhead -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 5:19:05 PM)
Referring to The Matrix is unlikely to help matters anywhere. It's a laughably simplistic heap of shit that makes the Star Wars prequels look like Videodrome by comparison, and has nothing to say about virtual realities beyond the fact that they're good for hiding stuff.

PeonForHer -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 6:06:48 PM)
Yeah, but, it was quite a fun piece of shit, no?

Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/6/2012 7:11:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML How fucking condescending[8\|] Yeah, it must be contagious or something, a seasonal thing. "Forgive them, for they know not their ass from the stick in it," and all that; seems I've heard something similar on this thread already. quote: Let's get together on definitions. A virtual reality is one in which distinct individuals communicate with one another in a faux community like Facebook or CM. What exactly do you mean by the term? Not my fault your language fails to disambiguate a compound from a phrase and instead relies on context to do this. Virtual reality. Virtual reality. The former, a compound. The latter, a phrase. So, what I meant was: a virtual reality, the phrase. quote: Your brain fabricates dreams out of real life experiences. Indeed, it's as regular as reality. quote: I try to be open to most things on these boards because I learn a lot, but really you are just making up this fantastical shit. And thus you miss another opportunity for learning. But I'm going to do the quasipatient thing and connect a few of the dots for you. We're presently, in this reality, building the technology to bypass the connections between the human brain and the body, and it will take a few decades to get to that point, best guess. We presently have petascale supercomputing, and will have zettascale supercomputing by 2030 or so. By comparison, the human brain's net processing power is terascale. You could run ten human brains on one RoadRunner, if the work Siemens and Karlsruhe Institute of Technology are doing on reverse engineering them had been completed already, but it isn't, and so you're going to have to wait a few decades for that. Lots of software work to do, as well. But in the end, a human brain will interact directly with a virtual environment in a simulation in my lifetime, and optimists are positing that we may start doing brain uploads in that same span of time as a means to preserve life in a simulated form (scientifically, there's no difference), though I'm more skeptical of that. To summarize: in my lifetime, it will be possible, in this reality, to disconnect a human brain from reality and connect it to a simulated environment. This is not science fiction. This is an inevitable development that can and will occur. It has even been suggested that it should probably be hooked in early on to allow augmented reality to be used in order to further advance the state of the art in social, connected living and of course various other purposes, such as the ease with which signage can be updated and additional information be put at our fingertips. It has been warned that there are potential downsides, as well, and unforeseen uses, but that's a bridge we've collectively decided to cross when we get to it. It'll be fun, won't it? Find some consenting sub that's really into mindfucks, plug her into your PlayStation a few years, then unplug her and a few years later start occasionally telling her you never actually did unplug her, that she's still in your simulation; watch her always wondering whether anything is real anymore, or whether she's still in your apartment, plugged into that simulation that you've been directing for all these years. Quite a mindjob, no? Kink aside, maybe one day said sub will connect the dots, and start wondering whether the simulations are nested. Good scientists have asked that very same question already. We can't know the answer, though. quote: I will agree that bias confirmation is a human frailty. No, that one is interspecies to some extent. The capacity to work with holes in our understanding, by heuristics, that one is human. quote: That is why science deals in probabilities, strives for best fit models and falsifiable hypothesis. I'm quite familiar with what science does and why. quote: This is such a self-evident comment it hardly merits a reply. ~sigh~ As I said, I've given up assuming John and Jane Doe see as self-evident everything I think they should. IWYW, — Aswad.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 1:50:13 AM)
I'm confused as to why you are having trouble getting this, because I can show you where we're saying the same thing. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML *Either individually or as a community, we validate the existence of the real world by repeated experiences over time...* Exactly so, thus from earlier in this thread: quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata *On the basis of our personal experience, we believe the world to be real.* What we can't do, however, is prove that it is real; which leads us back to your original comment in this side-topic: quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML *If there is no real way to prove it are you not back to Faith then?* Exactly so again. Everything we do from the time we get up in the morning until we go to bed at night, our entire life, and our entire scientific enterprise to boot, is based on faith; faith that the world is real. That this is a perfectly reasonable assumption is validated by our personal experience. But it remains an assumption: We cannot prove it. Links to quotes: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4313311 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4298481 K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:02:35 AM)
quote: Exactly so again. Everything we do from the time we get up in the morning until we go to bed at night, our entire life, and our entire scientific enterprise to boot, is based on faith; faith that the world is real. That this is a perfectly reasonable assumption is validated by our personal experience A 'perfectly reasonable assumption' is not an act of faith. Please don't conflate the two.

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:12:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Everything we do from the time we get up in the morning until we go to bed at night, our entire life, and our entire scientific enterprise to boot, is based on faith; faith that the world is real. That this is a perfectly reasonable assumption is validated by our personal experience. But it remains an assumption: We cannot prove it. Faith is jumping off a ten story building believing it only exists in the imagination. A reasonable assumption based on probablities is that the world is real and not to jump of a ten story building because you will splatter on the tarmac. The philosopher Gustave Borgmann said, he would stake his life on the sun rising in the morning but not his professional reputation. We should not get carried away with words but focus on the probabilities.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:16:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle A 'perfectly reasonable assumption' is not an act of faith. Please don't conflate the two. Your statement embeds the anti-theist assumption that faith is NOT reasonable. Please don't start that shit. Don't you have any insects to play with? K.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/7/2012 4:17:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Faith is jumping off a ten story building believing it only exists in the imagination. Is that the British English definition, or are you just making crap up? On this side of the pond, faith is belief not based on proof. K.

Page: << < prev 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875