Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Parents Are Flat Earthers

jameshfisher.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 216 posts

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#191

Post by lisper »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #184
lisper wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those two things are not distinct. It is manifestly untrue that it is easy to prove that the earth is round because there are people who have seen this alleged proof and remain unconvinced. The fact that you (and I) think those people are idiots is not probative.

"It is manifestly untrue that it is easy to prove that the earth is round because there are people who have seen this alleged proof and remain unconvinced. " No, it's not 'alleged proof' it's 'proof' and the people who do not believe it obviously have some kind of problem.

See my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18957158

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#193

Post by paradoxparalax »

squirrelicus wrote: post #175
paradoxparalax wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those fairy tales, I would bet that , if let's say for example Jesus, existed in reality as a person(not clear) He maybe didn't speak any of those fairy tales. They are inventions made by distorting and contorting what was originnaly said by the Thinker, most probably with malicious intentions. Now there I am not clear, but in the case of Buddha, when he walked on earth(most probably true, if not already proven) I am…

Siddhartha Gautama was a Hindu. His whole schtick was "why are the Gods incapable of eliminating suffering? I'll sit under this tree until I find out." Definitely not an atheist. He merely believed, as most Buddhists traditions believe, that the gods are not relevant to acheiving Nirvana.

That he was said or he said or someone said that because he could be Hindu(!) It has surely nothing to do with not being an Atheist. You speak like you were his good friend. Have you read all ""his"" writings?

: (!) "Definitely not an atheist. He merely..." Again, too confident when saying something about someone who lived 2000 years ago...If it was about someone you knew personally, I would take it. Now I was confident too, and confidence is a two-edged sword(again!) , but your confidence, not adhominen, mind you, I say AdCommentum that, by how your Tone sounds, your confidence is bigger than mine.

:And to conclude: What you call Hindu here? please clarify, because if you say that this is a Religion, I mean, If you are talking about hinduism, mind, ( off course when you said Hindu there you are not talking about he being born in India) So.There is a thing called Buddhism, and this thing is Not called Hinduism for some reason, so if buddha was something, he was Buddhist, So saying that he was Hindu to prove this point is unreasonable reasoning. Now forget about Hindu or Hinduism, If you are saying that the Buddhism Buddha Thinked(not the one people transformed in fairy tales) is not an Atheist, serious, Serious, philosophycal thinking, that thats what you are saying, because there is no Rigorous Scientifically proof of what you say, And to conclude the conclusion: We Cannot Read His Mind, even if he was alive.

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#194

Post by gbear605 »

lisper wrote: post #189
tntn wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, sure, if you want to go down the route that nothing is falsifiable because the government is putting hallucinogens in the water so you can't trust anything you perceive, or whatever. But if that is the case, it is impossible to prove or disprove anything, so it doesn't make much sense that you claimed flat earth is "not even close" to two religions in terms of difficulty of disproving (there can be no rank of…

> if you want to go down the route that nothing is falsifiable It's not me going down that route, it's the flat-earthers. > Probably still you think Scientology and the Book of Mormon are "dumber" than flat earth theory simply because they sound weirder to you No. You are raising a straw man here. It has nothing to do with dumbness (though I do admit I find some aspects of Mormonism and many aspects of Scientlology t…

> overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife

How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence?

> mind is a function of brain, and when the brain dies, the mind dies with it

This is not provable. Suppose there is an infinitely powerful computer system outside of our universe that doesn't influence our universe but knows everything about it. Then it could copy the contents of the brain upon death and run the brain in a simulation.

You can certainly not believe in there being an infinitely powerful computer system like this, but it's a claim entirely unrelated to your claim about the brain.

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#195

Post by squirrelicus »

paradoxparalax wrote: post #193
squirrelicus wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Siddhartha Gautama was a Hindu. His whole schtick was "why are the Gods incapable of eliminating suffering? I'll sit under this tree until I find out." Definitely not an atheist. He merely believed, as most Buddhists traditions believe, that the gods are not relevant to acheiving Nirvana.

That he was said or he said or someone said that because he could be Hindu(!) It has surely nothing to do with not being an Atheist. You speak like you were his good friend. Have you read all ""his"" writings? : (!) "Definitely not an atheist. He merely..." Again, too confident when saying something about someone who lived 2000 years ago...If it was about someone you knew personally, I would take it. Now I was confid…

... slow down there turbo. I don't know what you think I said, but this kind of comment is not the kind that gets a response. Feel free to try again when you're feeling better.

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#196

Post by lisper »

gbear605 wrote: post #194
lisper wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you want to go down the route that nothing is falsifiable It's not me going down that route, it's the flat-earthers. > Probably still you think Scientology and the Book of Mormon are "dumber" than flat earth theory simply because they sound weirder to you No. You are raising a straw man here. It has nothing to do with dumbness (though I do admit I find some aspects of Mormonism and many aspects of Scientlology t…

> overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence? > mind is a function of brain, and when the brain dies, the mind dies with it This is not provable. Suppose there is an infinitely powerful computer system outside of our universe that doesn't influence our universe but knows everything about it. Then it could copy the contents…

> How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence?

In the exact same way that I have evidence that the round earth is not a government conspiracy: I have a theory that provides a good explanation for all the available evidence, namely, that the earth is in fact round, and that mind is in fact a function of brain. It really is the exact same situation with respect to provability in both cases.

> Suppose there is an infinitely powerful computer system outside of our universe

Now you're back in "the government is putting hallucinogens in the water" territory.

And, BTW, brain-cloning technology would in no way refute my position. To the contrary, the development of this technology would just be further evidence that mind is a function of some kind of computational substrate that can be understood in purely materialistic terms.

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#197

Post by lisper »

tntn wrote: post #182
scarejunba wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinctions are fictional. The standards for evidence falsifying are placed arbitrarily high post acquisition of evidence in order to ensure no evidence falsifies. It is a useless way to spend time.

I'm not talking about falsifying it to the people who believe, and probably nothing will change their mind. I'm talking about looking at the claims, determine what evidence would be sufficient to disprove them, and determining whether that evidence can be acquired. For flat earth, it's easy. I ask myself (not a flat earther) whether the earth is flat, walk outside and make any one of the many observations that indica…

But Thetans can be detected: they cause psychological problems, which is why people pay large sums of money to the CoS to exorcise them.

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#198

Post by gbear605 »

lisper wrote: post #196
gbear605 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence? > mind is a function of brain, and when the brain dies, the mind dies with it This is not provable. Suppose there is an infinitely powerful computer system outside of our universe that doesn't influence our universe but knows everything about it. Then it could copy the contents…

> How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence? In the exact same way that I have evidence that the round earth is not a government conspiracy: I have a theory that provides a good explanation for all the available evidence, namely, that the earth is in fact round, and that mind is in fact a function of brain. It really is the exact same situation with respect to provabili…

I agree that you have evidence for a theory that there is no soul; I disagree on whether that is evidence against a generic afterlife.

Two things could be simultaneously true: First, that the "mind is a function of some kind of computational substrate that can be understood in purely materialistic terms." Second, that there is this kind of an afterlife.

An afterlife doesn't require the existence of a soul. It could "just" be another computational substrate that runs the function of the mind.

> Now you're back in "the government is putting hallucinogens in the water" territory.

This infinitely powerful computer system is just a metaphor for a deity that is omniscient. I could have equivalently said "Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe. Then it could copy the contents of the brain upon death and run the brain in a simulation." If you're going to say that the existence of an omniscient deity is equivalent to hallucinogens in the water supply, then we're not going to convince each other of anything, since I came into this discussion assuming that we were taking a generic omniscient deity as a reasonable given.

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#199

Post by lisper »

gbear605 wrote: post #198
lisper wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can you have evidence that something doesn't exist when that thing leaves no evidence? In the exact same way that I have evidence that the round earth is not a government conspiracy: I have a theory that provides a good explanation for all the available evidence, namely, that the earth is in fact round, and that mind is in fact a function of brain. It really is the exact same situation with respect to provabili…

I agree that you have evidence for a theory that there is no soul; I disagree on whether that is evidence against a generic afterlife. Two things could be simultaneously true: First, that the "mind is a function of some kind of computational substrate that can be understood in purely materialistic terms." Second, that there is this kind of an afterlife. An afterlife doesn't require the existence of a soul. It could "…

I never said anything about a soul. And I never said that mind is a function of "some kind of computational substrate." I said mind is a function of brain, which is a very particular kind of computational substrate with very specific properties, one of which is that it is impossible (given current technological constraints) to make a copy of it.

> Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe

What difference does it make if you call it a "deity" or an "intelligent alien" or a "government conspiracy" or a leprechaun? Yes, brain-cloning technology is possible in principle (as far as we know) but there is no evidence that it actually exists anywhere. Likewise, a vast conspiracy to produce fake evidence for a round earth is also possible in principle, but there is no evidence for it. These two things have the exact same ontological status.

> I came into this discussion assuming that we were taking a generic omniscient deity as a reasonable given.

Huh??? Why would you assume that?

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#200

Post by gbear605 »

lisper wrote: post #199
gbear605 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that you have evidence for a theory that there is no soul; I disagree on whether that is evidence against a generic afterlife. Two things could be simultaneously true: First, that the "mind is a function of some kind of computational substrate that can be understood in purely materialistic terms." Second, that there is this kind of an afterlife. An afterlife doesn't require the existence of a soul. It could "…

I never said anything about a soul. And I never said that mind is a function of "some kind of computational substrate." I said mind is a function of brain , which is a very particular kind of computational substrate with very specific properties, one of which is that it is impossible (given current technological constraints) to make a copy of it. > Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe Wha…

So is your proof that the afterlife can’t exist summed up by “brain-cloning technology is not within current human reach, and there’s no non-human thing out there that could do the brain-cloning”? Because sure, I agree with that statement. In your original comment you were referring to a generic afterlife. Common afterlives discussed involve non-human being(s) to run the whole thing, so I assumed that we could assume the existance of one. Yes, I do realize that that is a very western perspective, but also we’re on a website that is primarily western.
Post reply on HN