Recent content by Thurlor

@The Grey Man I'm not arguing that conscious beings exist because we exist. Rather, I'm pointing out that, as conscious beings, we must be in a universe that allows for consciousness to exist. This is a statement about the necessary conditions for our existence, not a proof of our existence...

Why would it be impossible for life to come from non-life? What aspect of reality makes that impossible? To me it just seems like a case of emergent properties. You could just as easily claim that chemistry can't arise from atomic theory.

Occam's Razor is about axioms/concepts, not things/objects. A simple theory that results in multiple universes is more parsimonious than a complex theory that results in one universe. Just thought I would throw that out there as many seem to mistake the point of Occam's Razor.

I know my views are not the norm. Even when I can explain them in a rational/logical way I still face resistance. But that is okay as well. It's all part of vulontarism. Who am I (or anyone) to tell others what is best? How can a group of people gives rights they do not themselves posses...

Doesn't free-will rely on humans having a-causal properties? Unless you wish to play compatibilist word games and re-define free will.

@Cognisant This isn't some beleif of the masses only. It is a respected philosophical question that many atheists claim is one of the hardest issues to contend with.

@The Grey Man I don't think you get the point that myself and dr froyd are making. Can there exist consciousness in a universe that doesn't allow for consciousness to exist? Obviously not. Therefore we (a conscious entity) must by definition be in a universe that DOES allow for consciousness...

I just don't get it. Why is it considered such a compelling argument/question? Am I missing some profound insight into reality that philosophers are privy to? As it stands it seems like such a shallow issue. The Weak Anthropic Principle would seem to make any inquiry into the issue...

As I have gotten older I've adopted a more 'voluntarist' approach to life. Which leaves me in a tight spot when it comes to questions of governance. If only I was willing to abandon my principles for necessity's sake. Instead, I just live life feeling constantly trapped in a cage I was born in.

I actually think that time is the most fundamental of 'things'. Without change all is static and indistinguishable from nothing.

My google-fu is failing me. Has there ever been a case of an adult failing to pass the mirror test? I don't see how they could function in society but people are able to function without an inner voice or a minds eye so what do I know?

If humanity manages to colonise other worlds I don't believe it will ever become extinct. Though wait long enough and the descendants won't be human (though I'm not sure that counts). If humanity remains stuck on Earth then I think it would require a truly global cataclsym of some sort to...

Photons are dimensionless. Many measurements of dimesionless particles are zero. Yet they exist.

Would it be fair to state that computation is substrate independent? If such is the case would it be possible for a group of humans to pretend to be circuit components and thus 'simulate' a computational system that could run programs. Taking this further, could a computational/programming...

I have always had this tendency and recently I began to wonder if other INTPs also deal with a similar thing. If you tell me to do something (even if it is for my benefit) I won't. If you tell me not to do something I will. I used to think I was just being contrary, but it goes deeper than...