What if life is a very sophisticated virtual reality program and the event of death triggers the creation of an ethereal manifestation of your human form to spawn in a new area where it is given unlimited health?
Wouldn't any test performed on the virtual manifestation of your "physical" brain before death be conducted by a virtual manifestation of a "psychical" piece of testing equipment incapable of detecting the program that would create the ethereal manifestation?
What if there is a magical dragon in my garage? No test you could possibly device could detect it, because magic.
>device
Fuck me. Devise.
>what if there is a bear in those dark woods
Idiot. Not considering the possibility of something being real just because you lack the evidence of it being real doesn't make it magically not exist.
oh my god so many 7 of 9 boners back in the day
Considering the possibility of something that you could never know the truth of is a complete waste of time, which is why hard solipsists are the cucks of philosophy.
...
It doesn't matter whether the proposed concept is falsifiable or not, because OP is merely asking about the concept itself and isn't arguing that it exists.
Aye. Newton's flaming laser sword eliminates all scientific discussion over this topic purely because there is nothing to discuss scientifically.
...
How do you actually "ask" about such a concept? Do you want to ask me about what color my magical dragon is? Would any answer I give you be meaningful in any way?
Considering the possibility of there being a bear in those woods is a complete waste of time. There is literally no need to arm yourself until you're in the woods and you see the bear. THEN you can try to run back to your cabin and get a gun, not before. It's the only rational way to live.
Arming yourself before going into the woods having never seen a bear in them is just silly.
>1996
>My ISP is Southwestern Bell (dial up)
>spend tons of time on Usenet
>spending a lot of time in one of the Star Trek related newsgroups
>someone posts "I SUCK JERI RYAN'S COCK" and then some bullshit in the message
>I respond to it
>mfw ISP temporarily blocks my access to Usenet because "you posted 'I SUCK JERI RYAN'S COCK' user and that is obscene and against our TOS"
>that CSR's face after I got done yelling at him over the phone about how to read a fucking directory structure so that he'd see I wasn't the one who posted it, that the ISP had zero right to restrict my access to any part of the internet for anything I said, and that HE could suck MY cock
>Usenet access was instantly restored
There. My Jeri Ryan related story.
Jeri Ryan used to go to sex clubs with her husband, where he encouraged her to have sex in front of people.
According to divorce records, she hated it so much she went several times.
OP is asking what you think about it.
Except we are aware that bears exist. We can track bear movements. We can observe that bears do in fact live in woods.
Bad analogy is bad.
Okay. I think it's made up bullshit.
What about Jeri Ryan's cock, then? We don't know that it doesn't exist.
Be cautious about following this line of reasoning. It can lead to Roko's Basilisk, which can cause extreme emotional problems in vulnerable people. A lot of forums quietly censor any mention of Roko's Basilisk and reverse causality specifically because of this.
We observe that women don't tend to have cocks. We observe from her tight-as-fuck suit from the show that the only bulges are from her huge ass tits.
And nobody said it was, hence why I said OP isn't arguing that it exists. I think it's a cool concept, but severely flawed.
We're aware that the universe exists. We can track it's creation, it's expansion all the way up until now. We can observe that time didn't exist before the big bang and was literally created by it.
The instant time comes into being, the past the present and the future all come into existence simultaneously.
>i don't see any bear tracks so there is definitely not a bear in THESE woods.
>It can lead to Roko's Basilis
not googling it, faggot. try harder.
Yes, we are aware that the universe exists. You have not in any way tied that into your virtual reality program idea.
>I can calculate a non-zero probability of there being a bear in these woods on the basis that bears have in fact been observed in woods. It is demonstrably possible for bears to live in woods.
pics or gtfo
I doubt you're smart enough for Roko's Basilisk to have any effect on you. You need to understand how reverse causality works to arm the basilisk, and I suspect getting your shoelaces tied presents all the challenge you can handle.
what is an 'ethereal manifestation'?
Walk into an empty room that has two doors, the one you opened and another one directly across the room in the center of the wall. You turn off the lights and close the door behind you. The room becomes dark.
You walk across the room and open the door you had seen previously. When you look through the open door way, all you see is pitch blackness. Whatever was on the other side of the door doesn't include a light source. You can't see anything. You don't hear anything
An atheist would assert that there is definitely nothing on the other side of the door that was just opened.
>I doubt you're smart enough
Here's your reply you lonely guy.
Explain how reverse causality 'works' after explaining the basis to believe that reverse causality operates on consciousness, please?
thankings
existence in a non physical form
The classic thought experiment to demonstrate reverse causality is as follows:
There is a computer intelligence possessed of perfect logic, and yesterday it was told to choose whether to put a $50 bill in an opaque box. It was told that you would be given the box today, and that if it believed you would open the box, it was not to put the money in the box. Only if it believed that you would refuse to open the box would it put the money in the box. The AI was told that all of this would be explained to you, and so it would be able to use its perfect logic to determine whether or not to put the money in the box.
So, the box is in front of you right now. Do you open it? I mean, why wouldn't you? Either the money is already in the box or it isn't, so you would definitely open the box. But the AI has perfect logic and would know this, so it would not put the money in the box, and so you have no reason to open it. But it is aware that you would react this way, so it must have put the money in the box.
In other words, how you act *today* determines what the AI did *yesterday*, Reverse causality. And once you grok this, Roko's Basilisk can cause serious psychological problems.
>An atheist would assert that there is definitely nothing on the other side of the door that was just opened.
Not necessarily and here's why:
Atheism exists in really two senses: The epistemological regard, and the active believing regard.
I am an agnostic in that I don't think, as an epistemological matter, we can settle the 'ontological question' of a Supreme Being.
In this regard, someone claiming they have actual, evidence-based *knowledge* as to the ontological question, theists and atheists make the same mistake in different directions from our perspective.
But, in terms of everyday life, what your active beliefs, an epistemological agnostic is an 'active atheist'...
when there's no evidence to support that X with Y attributes has existence, there is no basis to believe it has existence.
Consider Santa Claus - how can you prove he isn't real? Well you can't 'prove' a negative; consequently the persuasive burden is on the one arguing that X exists to provide evidence that it does. Otherwise the same argument works for 'Prove God isn't Trump'
You're a try-hard faggot and you reek of insecurity.
>I'm smart
>look at me!
>loot at how smart I am guys!
>you're all probably too stupid to even comprehend how much smarter I am than you, that's how smart I am.
ok. what's 'physical' and what's 'non physical' though? Are matter and energy two sides of the same coin?
I have absolutely no clue what you're yammering about, but it's probably something to do with the fact that you're very, very stupid.
I think you have yet to show that the software acted causally on the choice/result of the human cognition.
I don't think there is causal chain where you seem to think there is I guess?
Is this bait or are you actually fucking drooling on your keyboard intermittently slapping yourself retarded
The metaphysical environment as like being on frictionless ice, where the conditions are apparently ideal for a philosophically and logically perfect language and all philosophical problems can be solved without the muddying effects of everyday contexts, but it is precisely due to this lack of friction that language in a metaphysical environment can do no work at all.
>tl;dr kys you blowhard
It's a thought experiment. It's not a real AI, it's a theoretical AI which we're positing to possess perfect logic. Anyway, it's probably not a good idea to discuss this in greater detail, since we're getting very close to the area where Roko's Basilisk is found.
Leave boy alone.
got it, but I think there's a causal gap so to speak.
Anyway, entropy is about to hockeystick in the magnetosphere, and that may be very very bad.
Fucking hate that guy. He destroyed my one true love.
Three years of studying philosophy and if I had just started with Tractatus...
...
...
...
...
if dubs this is 100% true
Humm this rokos basilik is interesting. Don't think i fully appreciate it right now but feel lile I'm on the cusp and if i keep on researching I could be fucked ?
Oh yeah. That captcha really fucked with my head too !
>that desperate plea for attention