DBT
Contributor
The probability of dying is not in question.
The probability of dying is not in question.
The probability of dying is not in question.
And thus the probability of having to encounter what that implies, assuming this is a simulation wherein we may be brought out of said simulation, would also be 1.
Pascal's wager is bad insofar as it assumes a specific super-reality. But it is fairly good, if one doesn't assume a specific super-reality. It harms nothing to consider how one would handle being "woken up" and that not being a thing. It does considerable harm to not have exercised the imagination at least a little bit, however, if it is.
At any rate, these considerations have as much value in determining philosophically what ethical boundaries exist between various classes of entities, how to consider systems of existence with extra dimensionality, non-euclidean settings how contexts of time may be different between these existential boundaries, and the like, which translate to better understanding the math that describes THIS universe
Pushing your mind into these difficult, abnormal, and often unnatural scenarios makes the mind itself more flexible and capable of understanding the counter-intuitive realities of our own world all the same.
The probability of dying is not in question.
And thus the probability of having to encounter what that implies, assuming this is a simulation wherein we may be brought out of said simulation, would also be 1.
Pascal's wager is bad insofar as it assumes a specific super-reality. But it is fairly good, if one doesn't assume a specific super-reality. It harms nothing to consider how one would handle being "woken up" and that not being a thing. It does considerable harm to not have exercised the imagination at least a little bit, however, if it is.
At any rate, these considerations have as much value in determining philosophically what ethical boundaries exist between various classes of entities, how to consider systems of existence with extra dimensionality, non-euclidean settings how contexts of time may be different between these existential boundaries, and the like, which translate to better understanding the math that describes THIS universe
Pushing your mind into these difficult, abnormal, and often unnatural scenarios makes the mind itself more flexible and capable of understanding the counter-intuitive realities of our own world all the same.
To speculate or consider ideas and beliefs is not the same as being convinced of their truth. Given an absence of evidence for the world as a simulation, life after death, God, angels demons, etc, how do you asign probability? Is it 30% likely a God exists, 10% that it's the bible god......?
I'm pretty sure I made it clear that NO probabilities can be assigned. At best you can point out contingents.
I'm pretty sure I made it clear that NO probabilities can be assigned. At best you can point out contingents.
I know you didn't, I raised the issue of probability because some people do believe in these things. So, by default, they assign a degree of certainty, that they are right, that what they believe is indeed true, that the world is a simulation, that the god of the bible in fact exists, etc.
We are what we do, that much is certain.All one can hope to do is be as comprehensive and imaginative as possible.
I was paging through the old anthology The Great Thoughts (compiled by George Seldes) this morning and this one jumped out:
God is not man's ancestor, but his descendant.
-Nikos Kazantzakis
In his book A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari has a suggestion which I think plausible.
He suggests that in hunter-gathering times, humans recognised a spiritual element in everything around them - animals, plants/trees, rocks, mountains, lakes, ponds, streams/rivers and springs - and there was no hierarchy in this spiritual landscape. Everything was connected; everything was interdependent on everything else. (We see traces of this in some surviving societies).
Harari goes on to suggest that with the development of agriculture and the domestication and exploitation of certain animals, people saw themselves as set apart. They now "owned" the land, and they "owned" the livestock they kept on it. Yet being owners gave them limited mastery: there was so much they were not in control of. The weather, pestilence, infertility, disease, rival clans, and in this new hierarchical landscape in which they found themselves, there developed the notion of superior beings which were masters of absolutely everything, and which might be cajoled and appeased with gifts and flattery, to perform favours
(The Priestley casts which were able to commune with these superior beings thus acquired immense influence and power within their communities).
This bit sounds like part of the Victorian idea of the "noble savage" where hunter-gatherer peoples lived being careful to only take what they needed, concerned with not harming the environment. While it is true that early hunter-gatherers had little impact on the environment, there is no evidence that this was because of conscious intent. There is evidence that there were too few to have had a major impact and those few did not have a reason or technology to make a major impact on the environment. OTOH, these hunter-gatherers are known to have driven herds of bison over cliffs (buffalo jumps) to kill hundreds only to take choice bits (like tongues) from a few of the bison and leaving the remainder to rot. Another hunting method used was starting forest fires to drive game out toward a waiting ambush.In his book A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari has a suggestion which I think plausible.
He suggests that in hunter-gathering times, humans recognised a spiritual element in everything around them - animals, plants/trees, rocks, mountains, lakes, ponds, streams/rivers and springs - and there was no hierarchy in this spiritual landscape. Everything was connected; everything was interdependent on everything else. (We see traces of this in some surviving societies).
This bit sounds like part of the Victorian idea of the "noble savage" where hunter-gatherer peoples lived being careful to only take what they needed, concerned with not harming the environment. While it is true that early hunter-gatherers had little impact on the environment, there is no evidence that this was because of conscious intent. There is evidence that there were too few to have had a major impact and those few did not have a reason or technology to make a major impact on the environment. OTOH, these hunter-gatherers are known to have driven herds of bison over cliffs (buffalo jumps) to kill hundreds only to take choice bits (like tongues) from a few of the bison and leaving the remainder to rot. Another hunting method used was starting forest fires to drive game out toward a waiting ambush.In his book A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari has a suggestion which I think plausible.
He suggests that in hunter-gathering times, humans recognised a spiritual element in everything around them - animals, plants/trees, rocks, mountains, lakes, ponds, streams/rivers and springs - and there was no hierarchy in this spiritual landscape. Everything was connected; everything was interdependent on everything else. (We see traces of this in some surviving societies).
This bit sounds like part of the Victorian idea of the "noble savage" where hunter-gatherer peoples lived being careful to only take what they needed, concerned with not harming the environment. While it is true that early hunter-gatherers had little impact on the environment, there is no evidence that this was because of conscious intent. There is evidence that there were too few to have had a major impact and those few did not have a reason or technology to make a major impact on the environment. OTOH, these hunter-gatherers are known to have driven herds of bison over cliffs (buffalo jumps) to kill hundreds only to take choice bits (like tongues) from a few of the bison and leaving the remainder to rot. Another hunting method used was starting forest fires to drive game out toward a waiting ambush.In his book A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari has a suggestion which I think plausible.
He suggests that in hunter-gathering times, humans recognised a spiritual element in everything around them - animals, plants/trees, rocks, mountains, lakes, ponds, streams/rivers and springs - and there was no hierarchy in this spiritual landscape. Everything was connected; everything was interdependent on everything else. (We see traces of this in some surviving societies).
This bit sounds like part of the Victorian idea of the "noble savage" where hunter-gatherer peoples lived being careful to only take what they needed, concerned with not harming the environment. While it is true that early hunter-gatherers had little impact on the environment, there is no evidence that this was because of conscious intent. There is evidence that there were too few to have had a major impact and those few did not have a reason or technology to make a major impact on the environment. OTOH, these hunter-gatherers are known to have driven herds of bison over cliffs (buffalo jumps) to kill hundreds only to take choice bits (like tongues) from a few of the bison and leaving the remainder to rot. Another hunting method used was starting forest fires to drive game out toward a waiting ambush.In his book A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari has a suggestion which I think plausible.
He suggests that in hunter-gathering times, humans recognised a spiritual element in everything around them - animals, plants/trees, rocks, mountains, lakes, ponds, streams/rivers and springs - and there was no hierarchy in this spiritual landscape. Everything was connected; everything was interdependent on everything else. (We see traces of this in some surviving societies).
Pretty much every ancient way of living, if scaled to modern humans, would end the world that same day.
On the topic of those in power who claim to have access to gods...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=328s&v=pA5PlJiqOnk (jumps to 5:28)the strong took power first and theirreign was bloody then came the clever
with their notions of God - eventually that
too became a bloody affair the elders of
the early tribes seized power by
appealing to the all-powerful who dwelt
in a cave they claimed the god cave
it was off-limits forbidden to everyone
except the elders who only entered to
receive commands from God and to give
God gifts of people of course only the
elders knew the truth that the cave was
empty
it was the elders who were truly giving
the divine commands and enjoying the
fruits of the tribes offerings in return
they offered absolutely nothing except
the promise of reward and Punishment and
an afterlife that would never be as a
result the elders were the wealthiest
most powerful people of their time power
led to corruption and corruption to
greed which made the people's suspicion
strong enough to explore the forbidden
cave finding it devoid of God or any
supernatural power whatsoever this was a
crisis for the powers that be who
quickly found that without their God
construct they had no power hiding God
in forbidden places eventually gave way
to hiding God in progressively
inaccessible places a mountaintop the
sky the Stars beyond space and time
allowing people to make whatever claims
they wanted which usually coincided with
using the manufactured authority of God
to spread their influence they acted as
God's mouthpiece when in actuality it
was the other way around
That lecture is set in the future and it goes on to explain that a simulation would be used where the person becomes God to see if they will be corrupted by absolute power....
All supernatural phenomena has a materialistic explanation
Post by excreationist » Mon Jan 30, 2006 9:20 pm
I'm a believer in the supernatural realm now (Kabbalah style)
But I think that any supernatural phenomenon (include good and bad luck due to karma) ALWAYS has a materialistic explanation. It's as if there is an equation that has to be solved so that things are consistent from both the materialistic and supernatural points of view.
....
People who try to convince scientific-minded people about their supernatural experiences become frustrated since I think the supernatural world wants to stay hidden from the material world. They coexist in people's minds, which are another realm (I think - according to the Kabbalah).
(BTW, I'm still taking all of my medication and my life is going really well. I've found "The Kabbalah Experience" by Naomi Ozaniec to be very helpful - though it is a long way up their "tree of knowledge" to get to the "wisdom" sephiroth [plane of consciousness])
Hi, I’m Satan at this point in time and I know the secrets of life.
THE LAW OF REALITY EVERYTHING happens for a Good logical reason.
The secret of eternal life on earth is to not break any commandments in the Bible, tempt others, be selfish, don’t pay for things with money, don’t manipulate people, be imperfect and believe and preach the LIE of materialism.
Anyone want to be my servant or be another Satan?
- walk on gravel or wet grass with bare feet
- move an ice cube over sensitive parts of your body
- use a brush on the back (not front) of knee
see also: (involves apparent evidence of an intelligent force)Lately I'm not sure I believe in the supernatural anymore though a couple days ago I went to a healing centre twice to try and strengthen my Christian faith... they also did a bit of deliverance to rid me of curses and evil spirits
.....
Well I tried killing myself last Sunday afternoon/night (see earlier posts) and on Wednesday I told my doctor about it and he told me I had to go to the mental hospital to keep me safe.
What I need to do is to believe that life is inherently valuable or sacred or something... i.e. by being a Christian (all my relatives are but after looking through some books I find it very hard to believe again and even harder to be "on fire" for the lord)
One of my psychiatrists says that humanism also says that life is inherently valuable. Maybe I'll be a humanist rather than the suicidal pessimist I have been lately.