(February 15, 2013 at 5:49 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(February 15, 2013 at 5:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: FFS, this thread isn't even about science, it's a philosophical discussion on what it is to "know".

We're not going in circles, Brian, we aren't having the same discussion. You might want to check which subforum thread is in.

People who don't understand the difference between science and philosophy should keep out of both the science and philosophy forums, IMO...

We dont need philosophy. We have the TOOL of scientific method. Thats like driving a horse and buggy today.

(February 15, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No one said, and I am not saying, we should act like robots. I am saying on important issues when we conflict on what reality is, the best path is to take those claims into neutral settings and kick the tires and have those claims then independently peer reviewed.

The problem is, there is no neutral setting to take claims into when the claims are about the nature of reality itself.

Quote:I am not saying we shouldn't have a sense of awe, or not have any value for pretty things. I am not saying we are even rational all the time, no human ever is every second of their lives. I am not saying we cant or should not enjoy art or sports or music. I am not saying we should oppress or arrest people or things we might not like.

If you get your kicks being a Buddhist, or Hindu or Christian, that is a placebo of that individual, but it cannot be equated to a universal thing, especially not something like a computer or car or cell phone. When people have personal predilections like politics or traditions or religions or favorite sports teams, those are mere personal predilections.

Humans need water and food and clothing. No one needs to watch soccer, they may like it, but they can also play another sport, or not play sports at all.

I have no idea what all that was in reference to, or how it has any bearing on the conversation we are having.

Quote:Cut it with the simulation crap please, that is simply a si fi version of a god.

No. That's kinda the entire point of the discussion here. Whether it is the sci-fi version of a God is irrelevant anyway. We are talking about possible realities.

Quote:Who caused the simulation? If it was uncased, then it it has no puppet master. If it has no puppet master then it doesn't need to be called a simulation, it can simply be seen as an ongoing cycle.

Completely irrelevant. The possibility exists without having to go into details, and given that we aren't claiming a simulation is the case, we don't have to either.

Quote:If it is a simulation then a more complex simulation caused this one, and then another even more complex simulation caused that one, and then an even more complex simulation caused that one and so on and so on and so on.

Not necessarily. If our scientific reality is the truth, and I create a simulated universe on my computer, that doesn't suddenly make my reality a simulation too. I'm not sure where you got the idea that simulations only come from simulations; that isn't what we are describing here. What we are describing is the possibility that our perceived reality is a simulation. Outside of the simulation, who knows, maybe another simulation, or maybe the actual reality. It doesn't matter.

Quote:But, if all this is is an uncased cycle, it can start out from something simple and doesn't need something more complex to explain it.

The point isn't to explain something; the point is to illustrate the possibility.

(February 15, 2013 at 6:10 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 15, 2013 at 5:49 pm)Tiberius Wrote: People who don't understand the difference between science and philosophy should keep out of both the science and philosophy forums, IMO...

We dont need philosophy. We have the TOOL of scientific method. Thats like driving a horse and buggy today.

You really just proved what I said above. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Tiberius Wrote:The problem is, there is no neutral setting to take claims into when the claims are about the nature of reality itself.

How did we get to the moon then? What are you typing on? Are you saying we didn't go to the moon? Are you saying you are not using media technology to converse with me?

Some one had to use scientific method to figure out those things. Otherwise if we did not start somewhere none of that would have happened.

Again you are merely playing a game of "technically". And I agree "technically" but only "technically". I am not hedging my bets on anything just because someone has the ability to claim it.

---

I don't know how to build a car engine from scratch, but I don't assume that there is a pink unicorn under the hood every time the hood is shut, even though "technically" I don't look under the hood every time I start the car. I do know how to drive a car and I don't assume that it runs on sugar.

(February 15, 2013 at 7:17 pm)Brian37 Wrote: How did we get to the moon then? What are you typing on? Are you saying we didn't go to the moon? Are you saying you are not using media technology to converse with me?

Some one had to use scientific method to figure out those things. Otherwise if we did not start somewhere none of that would have happened.

Its hopeless.. So hopeless..

You guys may be going about it the wrong way?


LOOK DUDE!!! You're dreamin' kay?
.

(February 15, 2013 at 7:17 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I don't know how to build a car engine from scratch, but I don't assume that there is a pink unicorn under the hood every time the hood is shut, even though "technically" I don't look under the hood every time I start the car. I do know how to drive a car and I don't assume that it runs on sugar.

What? You clearly have at no point actually understood what anyone here has been saying.

---

(February 15, 2013 at 7:32 pm)catfish Wrote: You guys may be going about it the wrong way?


LOOK DUDE!!! You're dreamin' kay?
.

I'm not sure there are many ways left of putting it.

(February 15, 2013 at 6:10 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 15, 2013 at 5:49 pm)Tiberius Wrote: People who don't understand the difference between science and philosophy should keep out of both the science and philosophy forums, IMO...

We dont need philosophy. We have the TOOL of scientific method. Thats like driving a horse and buggy today.

Seriously? I realize much philosophy seems like navel grazing, but without philosophy, you wouldn't even HAVE the scientific method.

---

Also - if you think philosophy has no value, what the fucking fuck are you doing shitting all over a thread in the Philosophy subforum?

(February 15, 2013 at 7:53 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(February 15, 2013 at 6:10 pm)Brian37 Wrote: We dont need philosophy. We have the TOOL of scientific method. Thats like driving a horse and buggy today.

Seriously? I realize much philosophy seems like navel grazing, but without philosophy, you wouldn't even HAVE the scientific method.

---

Also - if you think philosophy has no value, what the fucking fuck are you doing shitting all over a thread in the Philosophy subforum?

No, I said it is past it's due date. Horse and buggy vs car. Cars still have wheels, just not wooden ones. And wooden wheels are not the entire car.

That was deep...
.

(February 15, 2013 at 8:31 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No, I said it is past it's due date. Horse and buggy vs car. Cars still have wheels, just not wooden ones. And wooden wheels are not the entire car.

But the car still has wheels.