Killing the Devil inside of me, with the help of Descartes?

[Moral Orel]

The answer to your present question will depend upon which epistemological (and even Hermeneutical) frame of reference we each think we're working in, respectively. Consider it a kind of linguistic and epistemic catch-22.

But, for the time being, maybe let's just go with some of the axiomatic intuitions about it all as put forth by a few philosophers since the time of Rene Descartes, like @Silmarien, or especially Hillary Putnam as a more specific instance ...

Okay, such as specifically...

 

[Moral Orel]

As long as there are multiple brains in the vat, we're not at solipism.

Keep in mind, I am actually an idealist. There's a big difference between having doubts concerning physical reality and having doubts concerning the existence of other minds. I'd say that you can withhold judgment on the former without going completely mad, but invoking solipsism proper is either an act of sophistry or of insanity.

Then I'm not discussing solipsism, I guess. I mean, I haven't seen a reason to consider other human minds relevant to my questions yet, so I'm not questioning their existence or not. But I am assuming there is my mind and the mind of a god that created, so I'm free and clear of being sophist or insane, ya?

 

[Silmarien]

Then I'm not discussing solipsism, I guess. I mean, I haven't seen a reason to consider other human minds relevant to my questions yet, so I'm not questioning their existence or not. But I am assuming there is my mind and the mind of a god that created, so I'm free and clear of being sophist or insane, ya?

No, you were not the one in the thread advocating fullblown solipsism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As long as there are multiple brains in the vat, we're not at solipism.

Keep in mind, I am actually an idealist. There's a big difference between having doubts concerning physical reality and having doubts concerning the existence of other minds. I'd say that you can withhold judgment on the former without going completely mad, but invoking solipsism proper is either an act of sophistry or of insanity.

Yes, I know you're an Idealist, yet I do appreciate your earlier post above involving Lovecraftian implications, none of which seems to be anything that anyone has attempted to refute thus far. I'm kind of wondering "why," really.

As for myself, I don't know that I've invoked any form of solipsism, although it may have sounded as if I did upon a cursory reading of what I've previously said to @Nicholas Deka. If I were to have done so, I would agree with you that such an act would be an expression of sophistry or insanity.

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, I know you're an Idealist, yet I do appreciate your earlier post above involving Lovecraftian implications, none of which seems to be anything that anyone has attempted to refute thus far. I'm kind of wondering "why," really.

As for myself, I don't know that I've invoked any form of solipsism, although it may have sounded as if I did upon a cursory reading of what I've previously said to @Nicholas Deka. If I were to have done so, I would agree with you that such an act would be an expression of sophistry or insanity.

No, I just got a kick out of Todd telling you that he only found it useful to operate under the assumption that perhaps you existed.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, I know you're an Idealist, yet I do appreciate your earlier post above involving Lovecraftian implications, none of which seems to be anything that anyone has attempted to refute thus far. I'm kind of wondering "why," really.

I read it and I've been kicking something around in my head for a bit now, but I already have a separate discussion about something else entirely going on with @Silmarien in a different thread that I'm more interested in at the moment. Feel free to throw some of those ideas into our discussion yourself, though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, such as specifically...

...such as that when we're speaking of human representations--such as our chatting about the supposed possibility of a Sci-Fi/Horror scenario like a Brain-In-A-Vat--for the representations within that kind of scenario to be relevant to further evaluations about their relevance, they would have to be recognized as having "intention" and extension of "reference" in their conveyed representational meaning, or else they wouldn't actually represent any 'real' possibility that we'd need to worry about.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, I just got a kick out of Todd telling you that he only found it useful to operate under the assumption that perhaps you existed.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Todd's doubts were born out in some way and it turned out that I was just a Christian Forums A.I. 'bot,' here to fill in when no other Christians had anything to say, to fill atheistic heads with doubts about their doubts?

 

[gaara4158]

Yes, I know you're an Idealist, yet I do appreciate your earlier post above involving Lovecraftian implications, none of which seems to be anything that anyone has attempted to refute thus far. I'm kind of wondering "why," really.

What would you refute about it?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Wouldn't it be a hoot if Todd's doubts were born out in some way and it turned out that I was just a Christian Forums A.I. 'bot,' here to fill in when no other Christians had anything to say, to fill atheistic heads with doubts about their doubts?

Well, you’re doing a lousy job, Mr. bot, if that’s really what you are...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What would you refute about it?

At the moment, I can't think of anything to refute about @Silmarien's earlier post (#34). How about you? Do you have any grievances with it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I read it and I've been kicking something around in my head for a bit now, but I already have a separate discussion about something else entirely going on with @Silmarien in a different thread that I'm more interested in at the moment. Feel free to throw some of those ideas into our discussion yourself, though.

I have no idea what that thread is. Although, truthfully, I'm kind of busy at the moment with my own thoughts in having just seen Dark Phoenix and thinking how it may or may not tie into this thread of mine ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, you’re doing a lousy job, Mr. bot, if that’s really what you are...

Thanks, Todd! I 'knew' I could depend on you to bring a healthy dose of reality to us here ...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Thanks, Todd! I 'knew' I could depend on you to bring a healthy dose of reality to us here ...

You know nothing, Jon Snow...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

At the moment, I can't think of anything to refute about @Silmarien's earlier post (#34). How about you? Do you have any grievances with it?

It doesn’t seem to take into consideration an uncountable number of “gray-area” god’s that could be testing you, and would send you to an equally uncountable number of tortuous afterlives if you fail the test.

I mean just look at the god Blerg, who sends you to an unbearable afterlife for believing in any gods at all because he would never be in a club that would have him as a member.

You don’t want to make Blerg mad, do you?

 

[gaara4158]

At the moment, I can't think of anything to refute about @Silmarien's earlier post (#34). How about you? Do you have any grievances with it?

Not exactly, I thought it was cogent enough. I’ve never felt the evil god hypothetical was a particularly strong argument against a good god, nor particularly convincing on its own, and she laid out some pretty good reasons not to go down that road. Even the Atheist’s Wager settles at us being better off living moral lives no matter who’s at the wheel up in Heaven.

 

[Moral Orel]

I have no idea what that thread is. Although, truthfully, I'm kind of busy at the moment with my own thoughts in having just seen Dark Phoenix and thinking how it may or may not tie into this thread of mine

We've been chatting about B-Theory of time and she's been helping me cook up a concept of the universe that allows for infinite regression.

...such as that when we're speaking of human representations--such as our chatting about the supposed possibility of a Sci-Fi/Horror scenario like a Brain-In-A-Vat--for the representations within that kind of scenario to be relevant to further evaluations about their relevance, they would have to be recognized as having "intention" and extension of "reference" in their conveyed representational meaning, or else they wouldn't actually represent any 'real' possibility that we'd need to worry about.

Uh....What? I need to accept that the brains-in-vats have sentience? Sure. What else?

 

[Silmarien]

It doesn’t seem to take into consideration an uncountable number of “gray-area” god’s that could be testing you, and would send you to an equally uncountable number of tortuous afterlives if you fail the test.

I mean just look at the god Blerg, who sends you to an unbearable afterlife for believing in any gods at all because he would never be in a club that would have him as a member.

You don’t want to make Blerg mad, do you?

I don't think that works. For one thing, it runs into the same problem that much of the Abrahamic tradition does--could a God that would condemn anyone to eternal torment be anything but an evil God? The Abrahamic traditions can potentially get around this problem by positing an existential version of hell, where damnation is something one ultimately does to oneself by failing to pursue higher meaning in life (or worse), but I see no way to reframe Blerg's arbitrary rules in a way that makes sense existentially.

Actually, I do see one way out. If worship of Blerg for whatever reason turns people into vicious mockeries of themselves, or otherwise destroys them, then it would make sense for such worship to end in damnation. But that would also make Blerg an evil God.

The first thing you would need to do for any Pascalian Wager is to frame salvation and damnation in a way that doesn't look like a caricature. Once you do that, though, the objections stop working.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Things can still be rational if the properties of matter and energy and such don't change.

The Rational cannot proceed from the Irrational per definitionem. Mindless iterations of matter may appear rational to us if we are part of some organisatiin thereof, but they really aren't then, though. We cannot establish veridical Rationality then at all, as irrationality cannot suddenly become rational, anymore than a madman wearing a duck hat doesn't become suddenly rational if it becomes the fashion to wear ducks as hats. Not to mention the problems of Intersubjectivity vs Solipsism that we ultimately need to raise here, but probably way off topic in this thread.

 

[Moral Orel]

The Rational cannot proceed from the Irrational per definitionem. Mindless iterations of matter may appear rational to us if we are part of some organisatiin thereof, but they really aren't then, though. We cannot establish veridical Rationality then at all, as irrationality cannot suddenly become rational, anymore than a madman wearing a duck hat doesn't become suddenly rational if it becomes the fashion to wear ducks as hats. Not to mention the problems of Intersubjectivity vs Solipsism that we ultimately need to raise here, but probably way off topic in this thread.

Then I guess I just don't care for the word "rational" in this context. I'm conscious, but a rock isn't "unconscious". It lacks consciousness. I fear this is going to be an argument of semantics.

So let's say, hypothetically, the universe has the laws of physics and they're static. There's no god that wrote them, they just are. Because those laws are what they are, universes spawn naturally. What is "irrational" about that? And what's so scary about it being "irrational" in that way?