Paintball Guns and Gear forums banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,784 Posts
This is just another version of Descartes Meditations. Descartes tried to find something to base all philosophy and thought upon, a foundation of reality so to speak. He was also one of those "question everything" guys.

He basically said that because of the possibility that we are simply a dream someone is having, or that our life is really an illusion put before us by a demon (or in this case someone's computer simulation) reality can't be the basis, since reality is in question.

The only thing you can base anything on is that you are a being that thinks (I think therefore I am, I am therefore I think). There is nothing you can do to doubt this, since the very questioning of your ability to think is thought. Therefore, the foundation upon which all reality can be based is that you are a being that thinks, because that is the only absolutely undeniable truth.

This whole "computer simulation" idea is nothing new, it's just a rehashing of Descartes. It's old news.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,784 Posts
If this were true, then it is religion. Our "god" is the geek on the couch giving us "religions" to mask his identity and prevent us from finding out about the truth of our existence.
 

·
Supporting Turtle
Joined
·
2,967 Posts
What is "reality" even?



When it all boils down to it, even if this isn't the biggest reality, it is OUR reality. We can't fight it, we just have to live it. My life and the people in it are all real to me, and thats all that I need.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,784 Posts
That's what Camus (another philosopher) talked about in the his "Myth of Sisyphus"

Sisyphus's entire reality is the hill and the rock. That's all he's got and will ever have. His purpose in life is to roll the rock up that hill. That is his reality. He rolls the rock up the hill the best he can every time laughing the entire way. He knows that in taking pride in the fulfilling of his place in reality, he scoffs at the gods. For their punishment is frustration, and he's not frustrated. He once again, outwits the gods.



The point I was making is that this concept is nothing new. Just because we have a new off the wall doubt of reality doesn't make it new, it's just a rehashing of an old idea (Descartes).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,784 Posts
By religion i meant the story behind religions as we know them today.
I would say that they are equally as plausible.

The most common argument against (and for) God is that there is no evidence to prove the contrary and it therefore must be true (that there is or is not a God.). The argument is used on both sides.

However, this type of argument is a fallacy known as "appeal to ignorance" and is not logical. That's why it always boils down to faith and personal belief, much as this idea does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,205 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I would say that they are equally as plausible.

The most common argument against (and for) God is that there is no evidence to prove the contrary and it therefore must be true (that there is or is not a God.)

I dont see how you can see them equal, a guy doing magic, or supercomputers(which we have)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,784 Posts
I'm saying that they are equally as plausible because both arguments boil down to faith and belief.

Both arguments require faith and personal belief to be followed.

There isn't any evidence to say that religion is wrong. Their isn't had and fast evidence to prove it's right either. But assuming that it's one way or the other because of a lack of evidence is a logical fallacy and just plain stupid. The concept remains in the realm of "possibility"

This argument is much the same. There is no hard and fast evidence to prove we are simulations, there is no hard and fast evidence to prove we aren't. Once again the concept remains in the realm of "possibility"

They are equally plausible because they equally require a large amount of personal faith in order to believe.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top