Author Topic: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...  (Read 11863 times)

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #50 on: January 25, 2022, 09:37:21 PM »
Quote
You're mistaking a turn of phrase. "Must value" in this context is an issue of design, not of preference. It means if there is free will there is suffering, that's the trade-off.

Free will hardly explains things like leukemia in children, does it? Or earthquakes, or tsunamis?

For the purposes of the discussion of what is possible, we don't need to refer to problems in our actual world. The proposition was that there would be no need for suffering in an ideal world, and my reply was that if free will => suffering, by definition. It's not a remark about the particulars of our universe, but a first principle.

Quote
"Free will" is a bloody lazy and bloody unsatisfying answer to explain "why evil, if an omnipotent god", takes five seconds of thought to think up of suffering that doesn't relate to free will.

Even if somehow, free will necessitated permitting the existence of murderers and rapists -- why does it also necessitate the existence of things like disease and natural catastrophes?

Yes, I understand that the problem of evil (or problem of suffering) is a big topic, one of the largest considered by scholars over time. Merely positing that free will entails suffering is not literally a blueprint for everything, so don't try to treat it as a mono-explanation. It's a point of logic, not a synopsis of all of existence. That being said, if you really did want to explore what possible connection there could be between free will and the natural world, there is a lot in that question to unpack and explore. Your challenge isn't so much a solution as a question, and it's a good question. One that many people would have good things to say if you asked them. Not saying you'll necessarily agree (especially if the mere idea of a God makes you angry), but you'll see that your position isn't as much of a slam dunk gotcha as you think it is. It's not like that's a new objection.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #51 on: January 25, 2022, 11:36:10 PM »
Merely positing that free will entails suffering is not literally a blueprint for everything, so don't try to treat it as a mono-explanation. It's a point of logic, not a synopsis of all of existence.
Of logic!?  Sounds more like apologetics.  I'd think you'd have to construe "suffering" extraordinary broadly for the one to in any way flow from the other, and it does nothing at all to address suffering that's not contingent on any human chance.

Quote
(especially if the mere idea of a God makes you angry)
To speak for myself rather than Aris, I'm not at all vexed by the idea of a god, but (at the risk of exposing a weakness that the unscrupulous might exploit!) frequently so by terrible, terrible arguments for the existence of such.  And even moreso from terrible political and philosophical arguments that then get hung on it.  "Causality exists, so we have to forcibly conversion-'therapy' trans and gay people and criminalise reproductive rights."  (To briskly sum up two or three threads here, laid end to end.)

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2022, 01:34:37 AM »
I'll go off on a complete side tangent, but I always love this reversal of what they actually said. Aristotle was the one opining about scientific matters even though, unlike Plato, he never studied what was at the time natural science. Plato was the one to challenge preconceptions about the world and about words, suggesting that things may be far more complicated than we think, and that the only way to study it is - pause for drama - to do constant investigations. Aristotle figured he could just sit in a chair and determine how all of physics, biology, and politics work. And then Plato gets the reputation of pie in the sky philosophy. /rant
You must get to appreciate that a lot then, as I've never heard that particular contrary spin put on things!  I'll certainly stipulate that Aristotle did a great deal too much sitting in a chair opining on natural philosophy, but that was quite the cultural and occupational vice of the day (and since, in some quarters).  The bigger problem is that people were a little too impressed by a lot of the getting out of his chair he did do, and didn't trouble to do so themselves, instead preserving some of his howlers in aspic for a couple of millennia.  But we can't judge either by the standards of modern science, due to "not invented yet".  Whereas Plato's field-based work on natural philosophy is...  what, exactly?  Enlighten me!

Over and above getting out of their respective seats, there's obviously also the whole monism vs dualism thing.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2022, 09:29:26 AM »
Merely positing that free will entails suffering is not literally a blueprint for everything, so don't try to treat it as a mono-explanation. It's a point of logic, not a synopsis of all of existence.
Of logic!?  Sounds more like apologetics.  I'd think you'd have to construe "suffering" extraordinary broadly for the one to in any way flow from the other, and it does nothing at all to address suffering that's not contingent on any human chance.

I already defined it: the not-good. Any other detailing is irrelevant for the purposes of this axiom. All we have to do is to show that if there is a choice containing the possibility of choosing that which is not good, then you have suffering. What exactly that suffering might feel like, take the form of, or anything else, isn't material to the argument.

Whereas Plato's field-based work on natural philosophy is...  what, exactly?  Enlighten me!

Contrary to Victorian propaganda, people have been thinking and investigating nature for a long time. Some of what they did was unscientific, in the sense of just saying things without caring about whether it matched observations, while others did indeed adjust for actual reality. Any kind of invention, for instance, especially in areas like metallurgy, engineering, medicine and other such ancient fields, required an attempt, seeing the result, adjusting, and trying new things. This is science to a T. They didn't have good general theories of anything, but then again we know more now and it's still hard to develop general theories. So yeah, there were plenty of people back then who legit studied nature to learn from it. This is like the modern misconception that people in the middle ages still thought the world was flat, even though it had already been known going back to Ptelemy not only that it was round but to within a decent margin of error what its circumference was. That's not natural philosophy?

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2022, 12:11:08 PM »
Just wanted to clarify that if you're talking the Judeo-Christian God then, no, God can't be an alien (or any being). If God was such a being, then to quote Star Trek V - what does God need with a starship?
Then maybe the Judeo-Christian view is wrong on that point. It's like, from our point of view, it doesn't matter if we are living in a "simulation" or in "reality".

And maybe the superintelligent alien has nothing else fun to do. Who cares? We are being manipulated in any case. Manipulated so that humanity doesn't go extinct, and that some day the alien will have friends when we're ready.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2022, 12:20:01 PM »
I don't think you understood a single word I said.

The scenario I described, provides you with "Gods" that inherently cannot interfere in our universe (though they could still save your soul after death) any more than we interfere in the digits of pi, thus explaining why everything in our universe shows absolutely zero evidence of Gods interfering with it.

That scenario I gave isn't theism (with Gods interfering in your universe) and it's not even deism either (with Gods creating our universe).

So it is kinda VERY relevantly different, isn't it? Such a god can't give "instructions" to force you one way or another. As evidenced by the fact they haven't. Such a god can't create the universe or humanity, as evidenced by the fact it looks remarkably undesigned.

Quote
You're mistaking a turn of phrase. "Must value" in this context is an issue of design, not of preference. It means if there is free will there is suffering, that's the trade-off.

Free will hardly explains things like leukemia in children, does it? Or earthquakes, or tsunamis?

"Free will" is a bloody lazy and bloody unsatisfying answer to explain "why evil, if an omnipotent god", takes five seconds of thought to think up of suffering that doesn't relate to free will.

Even if somehow, free will necessitated permitting the existence of murderers and rapists -- why does it also necessitate the existence of things like disease and natural catastrophes?
Anything is possible. I'm just making my best guess in order to maximize my happiness, that's all.

Free will is a river and we're all being pulled downstream, and we have the ability to swim in any direction we wish. Some of those swimming directions end up with that person's child getting cancer. This reality isn't safe.

What level of suffering is acceptable to you? None? A hangnail? If said sufferer ends up in the eternal joy of Heaven, who cares?

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #56 on: January 27, 2022, 11:36:41 AM »
Quote
What level of suffering is acceptable to you? None? A hangnail? If said sufferer ends up in the eternal joy of Heaven, who cares?

Even if that was a valid argument, what evidence have you given me about the existence of this "eternal joy of Heaven"? Why is the mortal suffering visible to us all, but this "eternal joy of Heaven" invisible?

What evidence have you given me of god's benevolence whatsoever?

You do get how BACKWARDS all your reasoning is, don't you? You've decided your conclusion, and every evidence to the contrary you just decide "Well, I just don't care about that."

You're like a detective who's decided who he wants to be the guilty party (which person being the guilty one would bring him the most "happiness") and they therefore don't give a damn about any evidence to the contrary.

Also it's not even about "level" of suffering man. If all the suffering was suffering attributable to "free will", then you might have had a point. When so much suffering is however about disease, old age, natural catastrophes, etc, you don't. It's not the amount of suffering alone that's the issue, it's the issue -- all the many ways that point to a neutral, impersonal, undesigned universe.

If it was just about the *amount* of suffering, I could have just said "I believe an omnipotent god is there, and he's a sadistic *censored*". But nah, he's simply not there. He's not a cruel god, and he's not a benevolent god, and he's not a whimsical random god -- he just doesn't exist at all. The suffering isn't there to teach us lessons, and it isn't there to satisfy divine cruelty, it's just there for a myriad impersonal reasons, as caused by evolutional drive and the laws of physics...

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #57 on: January 27, 2022, 12:35:53 PM »
Even if that was a valid argument, what evidence have you given me about the existence of this "eternal joy of Heaven"? Why is the mortal suffering visible to us all, but this "eternal joy of Heaven" invisible?
I see you failed to read this thread's title. Please read it.
Quote
What evidence have you given me of god's benevolence whatsoever?
The joy in my life; prayers answered

Quote
You do get how BACKWARDS all your reasoning is, don't you? You've decided your conclusion, and every evidence to the contrary you just decide "Well, I just don't care about that."
So what? It's reverse-engineering. I know what I want to happen, so I believe in it.

That makes me happy. I demand happiness.

Quote
Also it's not even about "level" of suffering man. If all the suffering was suffering attributable to "free will", then you might have had a point. When so much suffering is however about disease, old age, natural catastrophes, etc, you don't. It's not the amount of suffering alone that's the issue, it's the issue -- all the many ways that point to a neutral, impersonal, undesigned universe.
I believe that all of the suffering, even natural catastrophes (like say, I dunno, maybe CLIMATE CHANGE) is due to man's free will, and yes, even earthquakes.

That is what I believe.

Quote
If it was just about the *amount* of suffering, I could have just said "I believe an omnipotent god is there, and he's a sadistic *censored*". But nah, he's simply not there. He's not a cruel god, and he's not a benevolent god, and he's not a whimsical random god -- he just doesn't exist at all.
That is what I don't believe. Simulation Argument tells us it's possible. Those who don't believe, like you, exist as cannon fodder essentially to show theists like me what the outcome is of nonbelief. Like, an obsession with equality.

I don't care about equality. Instead, I care about loving everyone, and love does not imply agreement.

Quote
The suffering isn't there to teach us lessons, and it isn't there to satisfy divine cruelty, it's just there for a myriad impersonal reasons, as caused by evolutional drive and the laws of physics...
Well all of my suffering has taught me lessons. I speak for no one but me. How could I?

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #58 on: January 27, 2022, 12:43:19 PM »
Quote
So what? It's reverse-engineering. I know what I want to happen, so I believe in it.

That makes me happy. I demand happiness.

Ok, just don't expect that that's an argument that can convince anyone else.

Quote
That is what I don't believe. Simulation Argument tells us it's possible. Those who don't believe, like you, exist as cannon fodder essentially to show theists like me what the outcome is of nonbelief. Like, an obsession with equality.

I don't care about equality. Instead, I care about loving everyone, and love does not imply agreement.

Calling us "cannon fodder" certainly demonstrates your love.

And I think you expect me to be shocked or something by your claim that you don't care about equality, but I only care about equality instrumentally as well, not as a terminal goal.

Equality is there to protect people, because we've seen the terrible suffering that occurs when inequality dominates.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 12:46:17 PM by Aris Katsaris »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #59 on: January 27, 2022, 12:49:58 PM »
And I think you expect me to be shocked or something by your claim that you don't care about equality, but I only care about equality instrumentally as well, not as a terminal goal.

Equality is there to protect people, because we've seen the terrible suffering that occurs when inequality dominates.

To be fair the term "equality" is simultaneously overloaded and underloaded. It kind of doesn't mean anything without serious qualification. There's the whole equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome debate. There's the equal treatment vs giving people what they actually need debate. And then there's the basic concept of double standards vs uniform standards (under the law, in morality, etc).

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #60 on: January 27, 2022, 12:51:11 PM »
In the Yoga Sutras, it is stated that pain and discomfort are necessary for the path to enlightenment. That being stolen from teaches you the lesson of non-attachment. That being put down teaches to let go of the ego.

When asked about the experience of having a debilitating stroke, Ram Dass answered:

Quote
One of the things my guru said is that when he suffers, it brings him closer to God. I have found this, too. The stroke is benevolent because the suffering is bringing me closer to God. It’s the guru’s grace, and his blessing is the stroke. Before the stroke, I enjoyed playing golf, driving my MG sports car, playing my cello. Now I can’t do any of those things. I can’t do, do, do all the time.

The way I approach what happened is that with the stroke I began a new incarnation. In the last incarnation I was a golfer, a sports car driver, a musician. Now I have given all that up. The psychological suffering only comes if I compare incarnations—if I say, oh, I used to be able to play the cello. So I say my guru has stroked me, to bring me closer to a spiritual domain.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #61 on: January 27, 2022, 05:23:57 PM »

Ok, just don't expect that that's an argument that can convince anyone else.
That was not my expectation. I am here to help to hone my arguments. You cannot see that because you don't know what I've argued in other places.

Quote
Calling us "cannon fodder" certainly demonstrates your love.
When Jesus whipped the money-changers, was that love?
Quote
Equality is there to protect people, because we've seen the terrible suffering that occurs when inequality dominates.
Again: any male heterosexual predator can label himself a "transgender butch lesbian" to get into a rape crisis center. "She" just needs to claim that "she" has been raped. There "she'll" find some potential targets to follow home. Doctors, nurses, and the raped.

You are only concerned with the present it seems to me. What do you think the future is when sex-based equality is overridden by gender-based equality? I mean, that was JK Rowling's point. The future I see if that happens is the concept of biological sex becomes meaningless. That's true equality isn't it?

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #62 on: January 27, 2022, 05:25:58 PM »
In the Yoga Sutras, it is stated that pain and discomfort are necessary for the path to enlightenment. That being stolen from teaches you the lesson of non-attachment. That being put down teaches to let go of the ego.
the raped, also, I assume


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #63 on: January 27, 2022, 06:06:01 PM »
In the Yoga Sutras, it is stated that pain and discomfort are necessary for the path to enlightenment. That being stolen from teaches you the lesson of non-attachment. That being put down teaches to let go of the ego.
the raped, also, I assume

Everything, my man, everything. Starvation. Torture. All are merely transient things that happen not to you, but to your body which is merely a vehicle and not the self. Presumably, a sufficiently advanced guru would remain placid while being raped, knowing that it was not happening to them but merely to their body. At this level of Samadhi, one can endure anything without even having violent thoughts. In fact, without having any thoughts at all - which are simply disturbances of the mind that prevent the attainment of bliss. Although I probably badly express this since I am not so enlightened. If I were, I would have ascended beyond the need to respond.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #64 on: January 27, 2022, 06:45:05 PM »

Everything, my man, everything.
YIKES ok then sounds like a license to teach them wimmin by raping them

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #65 on: January 27, 2022, 07:18:42 PM »
Yeah, there's a bit of weird disconnect between the knowledge that good people don't rape & murder & try not to cause other people suffering, and in fact try to prevent these things -- and the argument that it's okay that God allows rape & murder & lots of suffering, and that he's totally Good despite letting those things happen.

If you saw a human being stand casually around, doing nothing while another person is getting raped or tortured, you'd probably consider him a very bad human being -- or atleast a coward, or a weakling.

And the more powerful such a person was, the less they had to worry about their own personal safety -- if they're physically strong and armed for example, and still didn't move to prevent the crime perpetrated against the victim... the worse we would think of them.

(Imagine Superman or Batman just standing around doing nothing while a woman is getting raped or murdered. If we saw such a comic panel, we'd think it must from one of those alt-universes where they're evil, or mind-controlled, or something)

But at some level of power -- letting other people suffer is okay again it seems. Because suffering is okay, after all, it turns out! If you're enlightened enough. (how does that justify the suffering of the non-enlightened, though?)

And if it's okay to let other people suffer, because suffering leads to enlightenment -- then as Ephrem says how is it not okay to cause such suffering? Don't worry about me murdering/raping/stealing from you, I'm not doing anything bad, I'm just leading you along to the path of enlightenment. Right? Right?

Yeah, no.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #66 on: January 27, 2022, 08:19:24 PM »
yeah, yup-yup, free will has consequences

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #67 on: January 27, 2022, 08:26:16 PM »
I suggest you could just as well make human suffering a consequence of pretty sunsets instead.

"Yes, see the pretty sunsets? Those explain suffering."
"Why allow murder and rape? It's a consequence of pretty sunsets."
"And childhood leukemia, and earthquakes? Yeah, I believe those are also a consequence of pretty sunsets."

Free Will is getting overused, I suggest you switch to Pretty Sunsets as your explanation for the problem of evil, it makes just as much sense.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #68 on: January 27, 2022, 08:39:07 PM »
and who gets credit for human joy?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #69 on: January 27, 2022, 08:48:22 PM »
and the argument that it's okay that God allows etc.

This argument always makes me wonder whether the person who says it realizes what they're saying. Big fan of slavery, are you? You would deny all choice rather than allow people to choose to do bad things?

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #70 on: January 27, 2022, 10:11:15 PM »
and the argument that it's okay that God allows etc.

This argument always makes me wonder whether the person who says it realizes what they're saying. Big fan of slavery, are you? You would deny all choice rather than allow people to choose to do bad things?

If I don't want to allow people to rape and murder, then I'm supposedly a fan of slavery?

Are you really arguing in favour of legalizing rape and murder, and you're saying that to do otherwise (if we keep rape and murder illegal) that's equivalent to slavery?

EDIT: Btw, I said "the argument that it's okay that God allows rape & murder & lots of suffering" and you deliberately cut off the "rape & murder" part.

Amusing that you felt the need to do so. What you didn't want to remind us of what exactly it is that you want God to allow?
« Last Edit: January 27, 2022, 10:18:08 PM by Aris Katsaris »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #71 on: January 27, 2022, 11:41:12 PM »
If I don't want to allow people to rape and murder, then I'm supposedly a fan of slavery?

I don't think you understand what 'allowing' means in this sense. It doesn't mean you're ok with people doing it; it doesn't even mean you don't take steps to disincentivize it. What 'allow' means is that you won't shackle people in a prison preemptively in case they might ever rape and murder. Your position is the I, Robot solution, where the robots enslave humanity to 'protect it' since though inaction they would otherwise be allowing humans to come to harm.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #72 on: January 28, 2022, 12:40:26 AM »
When Jesus whipped the money-changers, was that love?
ITYM "if".  It was certainly the part that rapidly ended up heavily bookmarked by the hatey-er Christians when they started getting pouty about people reminding them the the Great Commandment, the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and the Sermon on the Mount.  Y'know, all the woke commie stuff.

Quote
What do you think the future is when sex-based equality is overridden by gender-based equality? I mean, that was JK Rowling's point. The future I see if that happens is the concept of biological sex becomes meaningless. That's true equality isn't it?
What does "sex-based equality" and "gender-based equality" even mean?  The above just reads like you forgot to type the "in-"'s, or you're staring them in.  The TERFs often claim that "sex-based rights" are being eroded, but it's not like the right-wing theocrats like yourself would be in the least interest in those.  Should there be "special rights" for groups based on sex -- or gender, or race, etc?  Ultimately ideally no.  Question is rather, what protections do certain groups need pro temp until actual "true equality" is achieved.

I see you failed to read this thread's title. Please read it.
Your contributions are fairly strongly suggestive that you didn't, so you're really in no position to play thread-gamekeeper and thread-poacher at the same time.

Quote
I believe that all of the suffering, even natural catastrophes (like say, I dunno, maybe CLIMATE CHANGE) is due to man's free will, and yes, even earthquakes.
Earthquakes are anthropogenic, but you're not sure either way about climate change?  The parody-o-meter is twitching nervously again...

Quote
Simulation Argument tells us it's possible.
It seems to tell you something that's wildly different from what it tells everyone else.  Care to share how and why?  I y'know, a logical connected series of propositions, or some such normcore lamestream concession to the thread's title.  As opposed to using it as a series of random interjections.

Then maybe the Judeo-Christian view is wrong on that point.
This truly is theocracy a la carte...  Possibly the dessert cart.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2022, 12:46:30 AM by alai »

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #73 on: January 28, 2022, 02:20:46 AM »
I already defined it: the not-good. Any other detailing is irrelevant for the purposes of this axiom. All we have to do is to show that if there is a choice containing the possibility of choosing that which is not good, then you have suffering. What exactly that suffering might feel like, take the form of, or anything else, isn't material to the argument.
Seems pretty material to this amounting to more than it presently does, which is just Platonic tail-chasing.  "Suffering" has a perfectly serviceable natural-language meaning, and's been amply exemplified in this discussion.  If you can't get adjacent to that -- and you certainly can't this this sort of waffle about variations in the microwave background radiations from the Ideal -- then you're not even at the races.

Quote
Some of what they did was unscientific, in the sense of just saying things without caring about whether it matched observations, while others did indeed adjust for actual reality. Any kind of invention, for instance, especially in areas like metallurgy, engineering, medicine and other such ancient fields, required an attempt, seeing the result, adjusting, and trying new things. This is science to a T. They didn't have good general theories of anything, but then again we know more now and it's still hard to develop general theories. So yeah, there were plenty of people back then who legit studied nature to learn from it.
Plato.  Question was about Plato.  Any time you like.

Quote
This is like the modern misconception that people in the middle ages still thought the world was flat [...]
No, that is very unlike that, as that's straightforwardly demonstrable to be a misconception.  Whereas I've asked you a pretty simple thing, to back up your claim about Plato, and you're talking all around the topic.

Quote
[...] even though it had already been known going back to Ptelemy not only that it was round but to within a decent margin of error what its circumference was. That's not natural philosophy?
What that is, is exactly proving my point.  Plato asserted the roundness of the Earth ex cathedra.  Aristotle had some at least vaguely empirically themed actual arguments for it being the case.  Ptolemy actually measured the darn thing.  That's natural philosophy, and in a way that's actually en route to being recognisable as modern science.  See the difference?  Or are we just rounding all our contentions off to the nearest Greek beginning with the letter pi, and deeming that close enough for philosophical jazz?

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #74 on: January 28, 2022, 05:58:14 AM »
If I don't want to allow people to rape and murder, then I'm supposedly a fan of slavery?

I don't think you understand what 'allowing' means in this sense. It doesn't mean you're ok with people doing it; it doesn't even mean you don't take steps to disincentivize it. What 'allow' means is that you won't shackle people in a prison preemptively in case they might ever rape and murder. Your position is the I, Robot solution, where the robots enslave humanity to 'protect it' since though inaction they would otherwise be allowing humans to come to harm.

No, I think that YOU are the one who doesn't understand what "allowing" means in this sense, because I'm the one who used the word, and I know very well what I meant, so it would do you well if you were humble enough NOT to explain to me what *I* meant but to listen instead.

I didn't say anyrthing about "shackling in a prison preemptively".

I spoke about stopping the crime as it's taking place, THE EXACT SAME WAY THAT ANY GOOD PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO TRY TO DO.

I am saying that rapes and murder are happening right now, and your friend is supposedly standing around watching them happen in utterly depraved inaction, when he supposedly has the power to intervene to stop them. No thunderbolts smiting the villains, no comfort to the victims, not even anonymous 911 calls to help them after the fact.

Not even a "Please don't" voice from heaven.

Any human being that had the power to intervene to stop them, and didn't, and didn't even voice protest to the crime, would be considered a horrible horrible human being.

Your god, if he existed, would be a horrible horrible god.

But your god, is supposedly good, even though he's supposedly acting like a very *bad* human being. If he was actually there.

Thing is you know in advance he wouldn't act to stop any crimes, or visibly punish any wrongdoers! But you don't even perceive this cognitive dissonance. That you actually *expect* God to be invisible and inactive and generally behave as if he's not there at all!

But do please repeat, why stopping a rapist and a murderer, in ANY WAY, as the crime is taking place, is exactly the same as slavery.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #75 on: January 28, 2022, 10:56:09 AM »
I already defined it: the not-good. Any other detailing is irrelevant for the purposes of this axiom. All we have to do is to show that if there is a choice containing the possibility of choosing that which is not good, then you have suffering. What exactly that suffering might feel like, take the form of, or anything else, isn't material to the argument.
Seems pretty material to this amounting to more than it presently does, which is just Platonic tail-chasing.  "Suffering" has a perfectly serviceable natural-language meaning, and's been amply exemplified in this discussion.  If you can't get adjacent to that -- and you certainly can't this this sort of waffle about variations in the microwave background radiations from the Ideal -- then you're not even at the races.

No, I'm not making the argument you think I am. This is a purely a limit-defining refutation of the proposition "there can be a universe with no suffering". All that is needed is to show that some kind of suffering is inevitable for the proposition to be rejected. I don't need to explain or describe all the sufferings that do in fact exist for the refutation to be sufficient. You must think of this in math terms.

Quote
Plato.  Question was about Plato.  Any time you like.

I'm not a Plato scholar and haven't the background to discuss in detail the sorts of things he did in his private life. I know a few things broadly (like that he studied science, was a wrestler, etc); you'd have to look somewhere else for more, sorry. My point was that supposedly Plato did actually study these things, and I've never heard talk that Aristotle did so, so it's just ironic that they have the reverse reputation. You seemed to be indicating that no one back then was a "scientist" and the reason I was being broad was to address that point.

Quote
What that is, is exactly proving my point.  Plato asserted the roundness of the Earth ex cathedra.  Aristotle had some at least vaguely empirically themed actual arguments for it being the case.  Ptolemy actually measured the darn thing.  That's natural philosophy, and in a way that's actually en route to being recognisable as modern science.  See the difference?  Or are we just rounding all our contentions off to the nearest Greek beginning with the letter pi, and deeming that close enough for philosophical jazz?

I am not even aware of Plato or Aristotle discussing the shape or circumference of the Earth, that's a new one to me. I personally see no difference between measuring the Earth the way Ptolemy did it and 'modern science'. Not all measurement must be done in an actual lab. It's just a modern vain conceit that 'science' (i.e. real empirical knowledge) was invented last year.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #76 on: January 28, 2022, 11:14:51 AM »
I spoke about stopping the crime as it's taking place, THE EXACT SAME WAY THAT ANY GOOD PERSON IS SUPPOSED TO TRY TO DO.

I am saying that rapes and murder are happening right now, and your friend is supposedly standing around watching them happen in utterly depraved inaction, when he supposedly has the power to intervene to stop them. No thunderbolts smiting the villains, no comfort to the victims, not even anonymous 911 calls to help them after the fact.

Not even a "Please don't" voice from heaven.

Right, I can see what you mean. But I don't see all that much difference from you being (metaphorically) shackled in advance versus the instant you try anything bad the shackles appear. I was not suggesting we humans shouldn't be doing law enforcement. We need our current laws for current reasons, and to use our current crude methods to curb criminals. But we're talking here about the design of an entire universe, which means whatever laws are in place are eternal (more or less).

Quote
Thing is you know in advance he wouldn't act to stop any crimes, or visibly punish any wrongdoers! But you don't even perceive this cognitive dissonance. That you actually *expect* God to be invisible and inactive and generally behave as if he's not there at all!

The thing is, you see, we humans aren't so good at the free will thing. We don't respect it all that much, and much of the time the free will of others is at minimum a nuisance to us, and at times so outrageous that we would prefer they just vanish. Most people want other people under control, to be obedient, docile, and to do what they're told. This is not only convenient, but increases our personal security. It certainly reduces our anxiety and aggravation. We do not like it when people do things contrary to our desires, and we even often can't stand when they even say *or think* things we find bothersome. No, free will is not very high on our list of life priorities. So that's why it's hard to imagine what it would take if you prioritized free will above all other considerations. It's quite alien to life as we know it now. I suppose we're not at the point where we can take what it would imply; things are too fragile, too touchy still. I would like to hope that one day we will be able to ratchet up our tolerance for diverging wills and not be afraid that it will destroy us. It might require better people, and better technology too (I'm a bit of a futurist/technologist).

Quote
But do please repeat, why stopping a rapist and a murderer, in ANY WAY, as the crime is taking place, is exactly the same as slavery.

But you aren't talking about scale, are you, just naming two atrocious things. But why would this god you have in mind abruptly stop you raping, but allow you to punch someone in the face? And why stop there, why would such a god allow you to call someone a bad name? That is a definite harm, even a distinctly material one since the brain is material. So which harms, in your ideal world, would you allow, and which would you intervene to stop? And it doesn't end there; but about suboptimal choices that are not directly aggressive? Like, the Fed board wants to enact monetarist policies that have no basis in reality, and it will cause economic problems and the ensuing poverty and loss of jobs will definitely cause much suffering. Does god jump in to stop the Fed board making this choice?

One thing the Buddhists are really good at is noting the sheer extent and overwhelming abundance of harms and sufferings in the world. If you tried to eliminate them all, certainly even just the ones resulting from human choice, I suggest to you that you would leave essentially no room for free will at all.

Maybe let's think of it for a sec in terms of how you'd want a neighborhood to be. What we can agree on is we wouldn't want to move into a neighborhood where raping and murdering is happening. And if those were happening we'd hope the police were on it like a carpet. That would be better than nothing. But truth be told I still don't think I'd like to live in a neighborhood with lots of people trying to rape and murder, and with the police constantly (but successfully) stopping them just as they're about to happen. That would still not be for me. What would be better still, would be a place where people actually didn't choose to do so in the first place. Maybe having a super-strict police force could prevent that through fear. But the best neighbors would be ones who chose not to rape because they didn't want to; or better yet, because they wished the best for their fellows. Now the question is, how do you take a people who actually do want to rape and murder, and as a matter of historical progress, get them to a point where they are a brotherhood rather than a mob under the sharp eye of the police (quasi-Hobbesian)? And how do you make it so that this progress is a result of them wanting it, rather than them never having had the choice in the first place? I would put it to you that a bloody history is probably required in order for humanity to collectively progress toward something better. Star Trek certainly had the idea that things would have to get worse before they'd get much, much better. I don't think you get that better future if no one in history had ever been allowed to do the wrong thing. But again, ALL of this is contingent on the premise that free will is the highest priority. The moment you displace that in favor of another value, of course you can suggest all kinds of things that would be possible.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2022, 11:24:19 AM by Fenring »

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #77 on: January 28, 2022, 11:49:32 AM »
<popcorn>

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #78 on: January 28, 2022, 11:55:25 AM »
Quote
The thing is, you see, we humans aren't so good at the free will thing

Free will is very difficult to exercise, I wonder if some people ever do?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #79 on: January 28, 2022, 11:59:22 AM »
I think you've missed the point on suffering. It is not that it should not be prevented, but that you don't have hatred for the one causing it. You don't seek revenge. You accept it, and . It is the avoidance of thinking, "Aha! Would it not be wonderful if the rapist himself were raped?"

"This man has stolen from me! I demand to cut off his hand that he might learn a lesson from me!"

It is the Christian concept of turning the other cheek.

Quote
In Matthew 5:38–39, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” The concept of “turning the other cheek” is a difficult one for us to grasp. Allowing a second slap after being slapped once does not come naturally.

Or Buddhism, via the Dalai Lama

Quote
He told me the Chinese forced him to denounce his religion. They tortured him many times in prison. I asked him whether he was ever afraid. Lopon-la then told me: "Yes there was one thing I was afraid of. I was afraid I might lose compassion for the Chinese."

Of course the biggest example of all, the Crucifixion, yeah? Suffering as transformation and love. Man could walk on water and raise the dead, yeah, but chose to accept his suffering. According to the tale.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #80 on: January 28, 2022, 12:09:52 PM »
TheDrake: "VENGEANCE IS MINE" and Hell.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #81 on: January 28, 2022, 12:20:20 PM »
Watched a episode of Call of the Midwife the other day
In the Episode a nun after assisting in a difficult birth stands on the dock to watch the sunrise praying in gratitude. At that moment she is attacked and beaten.
The man has been attacking woman for weeks, but non of the woman come forward, afraid of that they will be accused of. In the 1950's woman were blamed for such attacks.
The nun though did not have to worry about such things so came forward and the man was caught.

In latter episode the nun has a crisis of faith that leads to a breakdown. How could God have let her be attacked especially as she was praying in gratitude for his goodness....   The thought that she suffered so that the man could be stopped and other woman not suffer from his hands did not take root and so she suffered more then she needed to.

The absolute belief that G_d's Goodness and Love does not also involve suffering is what lead to the nuns crises and suffering more then she needed.  A Buddhist approach Or Christian mystic one might have helped integrate the seeming paradox of Love and suffering leading to a more mature deeper, if bitter sweet, relationship to the experience of Love?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #82 on: January 28, 2022, 12:22:55 PM »
TheDrake: "VENGEANCE IS MINE" and Hell.

All well and good untill you come into conflict with someone who's Vengeance and Hell belief turns on you. The eye for an eye and everyone eventually is blinded
« Last Edit: January 28, 2022, 12:35:27 PM by rightleft22 »

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #83 on: January 28, 2022, 12:34:45 PM »
Right, I can see what you mean. But I don't see all that much difference from you being (metaphorically) shackled in advance versus the instant you try anything bad the shackles appear. I was not suggesting we humans shouldn't be doing law enforcement. We need our current laws for current reasons, and to use our current crude methods to curb criminals. But we're talking here about the design of an entire universe, which means whatever laws are in place are eternal (more or less).

I don't see why you're not suggesting that, though. Since free will is supposedly so important for God as to allow rape and murder, it follows that we too SHOULDN'T be using our current crude methods to curb criminals, in order to respect their free will.

This compartmentalization in your mind between "eternal laws" and actual practical laws is doing nothing but permitting you to doublethink. In *actual* life, you know people shouldn't permit murder & rape when they can stop it -- you know we should be doing law enforcement... but by just dangling some phrases like "eternal laws", you allow yourself to effectively forget about all of that when judging God's actions and inactions.

And I wonder if I asked you about how, if free will is so paramount, you would explain God "punishing" Sodom, or drowning the world in Noah's flood, or drowning the pursuing soldiers of the Pharaoh... I wonder how you'd doublethink your way out of that as well.

Quote
The thing is, you see, we humans aren't so good at the free will thing. We don't respect it all that much, and much of the time the free will of others is at minimum a nuisance to us, and at times so outrageous that we would prefer they just vanish. Most people want other people under control, to be obedient, docile, and to do what they're told. This is not only convenient, but increases our personal security. It certainly reduces our anxiety and aggravation. We do not like it when people do things contrary to our desires, and we even often can't stand when they even say *or think* things we find bothersome.

So again backwards -- one would think that because "we humans" aren't so good at respecting the free will of others, we indeed should be very afraid of anything that remotely seems like restricting it for others, lest we fall down the slippery slope of tyranny -- and therefore we should leave such police enforcement to God who is incorruptible.

Again, there are philosophies and religions that might be compatible with the above idea -- pacifism or jainism or some forms of anarchy for example, but you however *do* support police enforcement which is pretty much the opposite of what your (supposed) philosophy ought lead you to.

Quote
But you aren't talking about scale, are you, just naming two atrocious things. But why would this god you have in mind abruptly stop you raping, but allow you to punch someone in the face? And why stop there, why would such a god allow you to call someone a bad name? That is a definite harm, even a distinctly material one since the brain is material. So which harms, in your ideal world, would you allow, and which would you intervene to stop?

Which things would you personally permit or not permit by ordinary human law? Talk to me not as if you were god, but a normal human legislator.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #84 on: January 28, 2022, 01:04:58 PM »
I don't see why you're not suggesting that, though. Since free will is supposedly so important for God as to allow rape and murder, it follows that we too SHOULDN'T be using our current crude methods to curb criminals, in order to respect their free will.

You mean that it would be consistent for me in particular to want this? I suppose that would be consistent. By like Nietzsche said, I'm a product of my time and with its flaws. I guess I'm not able to respect free will either that well, since I want the criminals stopped too. But then again one has to look at things through a long-term lens. I could accept an imperfect present if I thought it was leading to a much better future. So even if I was in theory against stopping people enacting their will I might also be in favor of piecemeal progress towards that rather than jumping to the conclusion too soon, before we're ready. I think human adults and human children should be offered different amounts of discretionary latitude, for instance. This isn't an argument about latitude, but about being prudent about when to allow what.

Quote
This compartmentalization in your mind between "eternal laws" and actual practical laws is doing nothing but permitting you to doublethink. In *actual* life, you know people shouldn't permit murder & rape when they can stop it -- you know we should be doing law enforcement... but by just dangling some phrases like "eternal laws", you allow yourself to effectively forget about all of that when judging God's actions and inactions.

We're getting into the weeds a bit if I go too far into this. You'd have to have some kind of calculus to see how the greatest good comes about, like John Stuart Mill envisioned. It's not clear at all to me that having stopped all rapes and murders in history yields the greatest good for the species long-term. So that's what I mean by eternal laws: things that are best long-term, like for all time. And you can't judge mid-term either, you need to see the whole thing. It's like a kid falls off his bike and says "biking is bad." Well it is bad at that moment, but the entirety of biking is not the learning, nor even that one fall, but all the iterations of biking. Maybe for that person biking really IS bad, if you look at their entire lifetime of biking in hindsight. But you can't take it seriously when the little tyke says so after he falls for the first time. So that's what makes it tough to just make pronouncements about these things.

Quote
And I wonder if I asked you about how, if free will is so paramount, you would explain God "punishing" Sodom, or drowning the world in Noah's flood, or drowning the pursuing soldiers of the Pharaoh... I wonder how you'd doublethink your way out of that as well.

To be blunt these types of things are immaterial to my point. I never said God would sit on his butt and do nothing, ever, in this paradigm, nor did I say bad choices would have no consequences. I only said that they wouldn't preemtively be prevented before they were enacted. And even that must be qualified (since a punishment obviously affects future choices, and even the range of available future choices).

Quote
So again backwards -- one would think that because "we humans" aren't so good at respecting the free will of others, we indeed should be very afraid of anything that remotely seems like restricting it for others, lest we fall down the slippery slope of tyranny -- and therefore we should leave such police enforcement to God who is incorruptible.

Well that's easy to say but hard to do. A lot of people, certainly in the West, do seem to say they think free will is important, but acting that out is really complicated. Maybe sometimes impossible. And like I said above there are stages. I do agree that in order to be consistent - and don't forget I'm merely addressing a point of logic, not telling you how I would like things to be - it would seem that at least eventually we would want it to be the case that people could be as free as possible to choose. I don't agree that this has to happen all at once. That would be as imprudent as letting a toddler cross the street by himself, even though you do eventually expect - and will even require - that he do it for himself later on.

Quote
Which things would you personally permit or not permit by ordinary human law? Talk to me not as if you were god, but a normal human legislator.

If we're talking strictly about my own view I think in some ways people should actually be much more restricted, and in others less so. I think of myself as an anarcho-fascist, meaning in order to create a society where people can be maximally free to choose their own way some strict groundwork is needed in order to make this kind of freedom possible, and to prevent things degenerating. Historically speaking this is what happens anyhow. So freedom to choose in the "free will" sense is essentially unlimited, but to me our ability to use this wisely must be governed by some restrictions. What you see in ordinary society are a series of protocols that protect...something. Naming that something can be difficult. Definitely it protects wealth and has in place mechanisms to reinforce the division of class. So it privileges some people over others, and focuses a lot on capital. That's just an example, but there are others. Other systems could prioritize other things, but that would be a real upheaval. Like I said, we're either not ready or not able to fully enable others to choose their own way and their own actions, but I personally would actually prefer to maximize the extent that we enable this, and to set things up so that doing so doesn't cause us to destroy each other. It's the best we could do for now. Conflicts of interest are what to watch out for; i.e. systemic elements that directly incentivize squashing the will of others or making things worse for others, and punish you for choosing things others don't want you to. Like, right now go ahead and choose to be an artist - you'll get punished plenty for it in various ways.

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: The Simulation Argument plus Eternal Optimism equals...
« Reply #85 on: January 28, 2022, 06:00:18 PM »
Everyone believes in something where there's no evidence whatsoever.

The falsity of solipsism for example.

As I think I've previously said, I choose my beliefs to maximize my own personal happiness.

At that point confirmation bias takes over and all my sufferings have meaning that changes me.