Why We Believe In GodsFollow

I know this... I just don't know how to keep valuing science instead of heuristics (or ethics over amorality for that matter) by admitting it, so I convince myself that experience and rules and basically everything in the world is not arbitrary so I don't have to turn into captain angst all the damn time.

How do you?

Utilitarianism, mainly. I don't care if I have free will or not, accept that my personal ethics are arbitrary, accept that I don't have magical self actualized control over my emotions or actions, etc. I worry about (or try to) outcomes and their impact on me, people I care about, and people in general pretty much in that order.

Maybe when I'm older then...

I can't be all mr. subjectivist about axiology and then put on the utility hat without some major changes in thought patterns. It makes me kind of sick to see inconsistencies like that.

Misunderstanding then, I was referring to measuring all of the states quantum particles objectively using a single experiment not working as the methodology will change the result. Thought that was what you were referring to as well.

Then again maybe it was.



I assume it is arbitrary but if it wasn't arbitrary in the way that it is than I simply wouldn't be here to care. I keep going on and doing stuff to ward off boredom and to help those I care about with their lives.

Look. It's been like 20 years since I took a philosophy course. I'm not going to quote you specific terms and arguments that match what you're learning today. Just as when I play chess, I don't act like because I can't remember that my opponent is using the "Fibronelli defense" that it means I'm not going to kick his butt (or not, depending on the day I'm having).

I know you love to quote the new stuff you've been learning in school. Some of us learned all that stuff long ago. In my case, I've largely discounted most of is as bogus BS tossed around by self-important idiots who think they're being clever by using ridiculously complex and inconsistent terminology to explain concepts that are really childishly simplistic. I suppose as a teaching tool, it's helpful, but once you "get" a handful of basic philosophical concepts, the rest is just memorization of minute variations on those basic themes.


It's new to you, so you think it's important. Trust me. It's not. And when you pontificate on about how such and such subject is really irrelevant because we all live in a subjective reality that doesn't really have true meaning outside of our own unique frames of reference, or some other such BS, it doesn't really produce anything useful to the conversation except that you're waaaaay too obsessed with the subject.


Who cares if time and space are purely subjective? Either there's always going to be someone subjectively observing it, or there wont. If there isn't, then I don't give a damn, now do I? So, for the sake of utility, can we just assume that things exist and events occur (usually in some order)? Pretty please?

This sounds an awful lot like Deism.

Yup. I was addressing Pensive's implied philosophical argument that time and space "don't exist" unless we are here to observe it (meaning "we" as in sentient beings). He was referring to the subjective frame of reference of the mind itself.


Here's the thing. Quantum Mechanical rules work even if it's a computer system doing the measurements (and in fact, it *is* a computer doing them, or do you think that humans are physically looking at the quantum states of particles?). That's what I meant when I said that Pensive seemed to be mixing together the idea of an "observer" from philosophy and physics. It does not require a subjective observer for quantum measurements and all the attendant oddities to occur.


How do you think we measure said quantum states? We cause particles to interact with other particles and then measure the resulting energy levels, collisions into a known surface, etc. At that level though, what's happening is that two or more bits of energy are interacting. And guess what? That happens all the time, even when there's no human watching. Quantum behavior has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a sentient observer. While it's a bit more "interesting" than classical Newtonian or even Einsteinian interactions, it is no less physically "real" because of it.

It's a common mistake for people to think that quantum physics in anyway means that matter and energy are less objectively "real". The commonly quoted statements about how the act of observing quantum states changes them does not refer to sentient or subjective observation. The same thing happens even if it's just two particles interacting naturally. Just because we're not there to see it is no reason to assume that they only react that way when "we" are looking...

Edited, May 7th 2009 7:39pm by gbaji

This has @#%^ all to do with you telling me what I did or did not argue of course. Is it that hard for you to answer a question without making a four paragraph tangent about your need to constantly ********** in an effort to disguise your impotence at comprehension?

We weren't even talking about school. You need to stop confusing passion for being impressionable. Do you have any of those? Are you so incapable of empathy on that level that you can't imagine a single other reason why someone might hold a position than some demeaning bullsh*t about being recently influenced by that position? Or maybe you're just projecting insecurity about the fact that you still don't have a @#%^ing clue what I've said. I don't really care which. It's annoying. It's insulting. It's dishonest. Mostly it's hilarious.



I'm sure some of us do, then there are others of us who never bother to learn in the first place. You are most certainly not in the former category. You're pretending to have an understanding of the discussion in order to save face, and attempting to deflect a completely simple and innocuous request that you can't accomplish to save your life given multiple tries so you can console yourself with the fact that you're opinion is relevant to every discussion imaginable. Grow the fuck up man.


bad filterbreak was bad

Edited, May 7th 2009 11:02pm by Pensive

Pensive. If you don't want a 4 paragraph tangent, then how about instead of repeatedly insisting that I guess the rationale for your rambling psuedo-philosophical interjections, you actually state them yourself?

Just a thought...

Oh



This might have had some bite to it if you had studied something in the past twenty years. The only reason you're not going to get publicly excoriated for it by everyone is because you aren't talking about a more popular subject, like biology or math.

Can you even remember the last time you admitted being wrong to someone on this forum? Is it painful for you to admit that you don't know everything? Dude I've even admitted when I'm wrong even when arguing with you on two occasions at least. Just try it; it really does feel cathartic.

I assume they don't? Never been to a social science-related conference.

Your reply style is not conducive to me finding that you're actually trying to communicate a reply to what I've posted.

Considering I'm perfectly capable and ready and willing to defend everything I say, I'm confident in making assertions.

I'm not explaining **** to you though, because I don't really feel like having to put up with your ****** attempts at deflection, projection, presumption, and generally being a smelly old twatwaffle while he's "arguing" positions in the same manner as a bleeding sophist. You've done nothing that addresses me in any way other than to lay down a barrel-full of red herrings and spitefully ignoring exceedingly simple questions.

You, though, you don't deserve to be part of a discussion until you can stop being a goddamn prick. We all know that the chances you will though, are basically non-existent, so I'm going to extend every person who is legitimately curious about synthetic reality the offer of continuing it privately.