Can you prove you are human?...or part of the Matrix?


sorabji.com: Who are you?: Can you prove you are human?...or part of the Matrix?
THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016).

By V.v. on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 12:50 pm:


By V.v. on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 12:51 pm:

    ...(switch speakers on)...


By wisper on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 11:30 pm:

    I found that thing to be pretty boring.

    On the same site, i like THIS test better.

    I got 0 hits and 2 bullets.
    (Although some of the questions are poorly worded.)

    apparently my atheism has no contradictions.


By wisper on Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 11:34 pm:

    Here's an example of poor wording:

    "You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion."


    what? that's EXACTLY what i'm saying. I'm not biting shit.
    damn T&F only answers.


By Spider on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 12:22 am:

    Whoo-hoo!

    **************
    Congratulations!
    You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

    The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

    A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!
    ******************

    I had to bite the bullet when I said that the rapist was justified in thinking God wanted him to rape people, or whatever the exact scenario was.


By Spider on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 12:25 am:

    My "bite the bullet" message was this:

    **********
    You've just bitten a bullet!

    You are consistent in applying the principle that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that God could demand something terrible.

    This is something many religious people are willing to accept. For example, Kierkegaard believed that it is precisely because Abraham had to contravene established morality to follow God's will and attempt to sacrifice his son which made his act the supreme act of faith.

    But as Kierkegaard also stressed, this makes the act incomprehensible from a rational point of view. The rational alternative - that people should require more than such an inner conviction to justify such a belief - is more attractive to most people, but you reject this alternative and bite the bullet.
    ***********


By Spider on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 12:34 am:

    But, see, I totally accept that, based on the language that the questions used, there is nothing logically (or empirically or whatever) different between my faith (looking at the *faith* itself) in God's love for me, and Peter Sutcliffe's faith in God's desire for him to rape.

    But, duh. Like, that doesn't mean Peter and I are both right, or that there's no difference between us otherwise, or that if you look at all other evidence, we are *equally* justified believing in our own image of God. I'm not a philosopher, and I don't have the vocabulary to explain this properly, I'm sorry.


By wisper on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 01:29 am:

    I got that award message and had that bullet too.
    I meant that it's justifiable for HIM, not for me.
    Ah, well.

    All their games are fun.

    On "Morality Play" I got 96%, although i'm still not totaly sure if that's bad or good.

    In "Taboo" i got shockingly low numbers compared to the average. Mine were
    0.04
    0.00
    0.00

    Compared to the average of
    0.29
    0.20
    0.43

    I'm saddened to think that so many people give a crap about some guy fucking a frozen chicken before he eats it.


By V.v. on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 01:42 pm:

    ...well i tend to think my original posting was the best...the "do it your self deity" i regarded as second best...and what really pissed me off was scoreing just 0.4 on my forcast that v.v.s God existed.


By Antigone on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 03:04 pm:

    "You've just bitten a bullet!

    You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

    There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?"

    This is silly shit. Discounting a belief in intelligent aliens on Mars based on a lack of evidence is easy. It's a belief that's verifiable. Belief in a god is not verifiable, thus saying that the possibility exists without hard evidence is consistent, given that the consistency of the belief is untestable.

    Stoopid fuckers.


By Antigone on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 03:14 pm:

    "In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet."

    Duh. That's the core of my belief system, specifically this: "you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality."

    Rationality is necessarily a subset of the modes of thought capable of describing the universe. Heck, it's not even proven that rational thought is even a member of that set. (And, in the spirit of Goedel's Incompleteness theorem, is unprovable by rational means.) So to think that discussion of god and ultimate reality must be constrained by rational thought is...irrational!

    Stoopid fuckers.


By Antigone on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 03:23 pm:

    Oh yeah, those were my only two bullets, but they're easily sidestepped if you take into consideration the provability of assertions. Those numbskulls need to get in touch with their existentialist sides and start talking in E-Prime.

    And I agree wisper that they need to rise above the boolean. That's my usual beef with people who claim to be "rationally consistent." (Including myself, btw.)


By wisper on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 04:20 pm:

    This "taboo" game thing is torturing me.
    I can see how a family eating their dead pets is gross, but wrong? Who thought it was morally wrong? why???? *sob*


By V.v. on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 05:50 pm:

    Hmmmm,well if you eat a dead pet,it becomes part of you,so that has to be good,right?


By Spider on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 05:51 pm:

    Most of those games are silly silly silly.


By V.v. on Monday, July 12, 2004 - 05:58 pm:

    ...well only a person who is an intrinsic part of the Matrix could say that...


bbs.sorabji.com
 

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS
 

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact