René Descartes Evil demon: Everyone is a functional atheist

[Des]

When someone makes a prediction, he is implying that he is an atheist iro omnipotent deities.

 

I expect most philosophers will have heard of René Descartes Evil demon.

I don't care what Descartes thought about the concept. I only know to ascribe the idea to him because I was previously using the concept in my argument iro omnipotence, and someone informed me. The remark that he did not ascribe omnipotence to his version of the demon is also irrelevant (argue if you disagree).

 

If there is an omnipotent being, then none can know anything, and none can predict anything. The earth has orbited the sun once per year for the past 10 years. How do I know? Well, if there is an omnipotent being, I don't. The earth will complete another orbit of the sun in the coming year. How can I be confident of that? Well, if there is an omnipotent being, I should have a confidence level of 0. The omnipotent being will treat me in an ethical manner. How can I be confident of that? Well, if there is an omnipotent being, I should have a confidence level of 0.

 

All of this is because omnipotence includes the ability to manufacture the appearance of evidence in the absence of actual events matching the evident events, and the ability to re-structure reality so that coming events are not as one may predict from past events whether actual or fake.

 

Non-omnipotent deities are functionally equivalent to space aliens, they exist (or don't) within an independent reality. Independent reality is incompatible with omnipotent being, omnipotent being implies omnipotent-being-dependent-reality-within-which-no-one-can-predict-anything.

 

I never said I am atheist iro space aliens, that is a whole other discussion.

[Donnadogsoth]

iro = in regards of?

 

Also, if one's brain is merely an agglomerate of fundamental particles of matter, which move each in obedience to immutable physical laws, then all states of one's brain are also merely in obedience to physical laws, and have therefore no necessary relation to the truth.  Ergo, one's confidence level in the truths revealed by one's brain should be 0.

[Kevin Beal]

This is an interesting twist on the evil demon thought experiment, except that instead of seeing a world which is not there, the world itself can be manipulated into any form the deity wishes. It presents the same problem as the original, though, which is interesting because this is literally what monotheistic religions allow for when they say that their god is all powerful.

 

I'm eager to try it out on a xtian to see how it goes over. Will they be okay with it? Will they protest with "but god wouldn't do that!"? Certainly it presents a problem for the xtian worldview. But then again, they could always just go existential nihilist on us, like Descartes did and then we'd all be in the same position.

 

Oh yea, and I couldn't find anything in google for "iro". What does that mean?

[Donnadogsoth]

I don't know how many Christians think this, but it occurred to me that God could break my arm any time He wished to.  I wouldn't even have to suffer a mechanical situation such as falling down stairs as his justification for breaking it, he could just break it miraculously.  The only recourse for the Christian, qua Christian, is faith in his character as a rational Being--that all happens under the principle of sufficient reason; humility before his power; obedience to his commandments; and keeping calm and carrying on.

[Will Torbald]

iro = in regards of?

 

Also, if one's brain is merely an agglomerate of fundamental particles of matter, which move each in obedience to immutable physical laws, then all states of one's brain are also merely in obedience to physical laws, and have therefore no necessary relation to the truth. Ergo, one's confidence level in the truths revealed by one's brain should be 0.

Since you used your brain to think and write this, you shouldn't trust this argument as true if you believe in it. So it is false and a self detonating complaint. If you used anything other than your brain to think please let me experiment on you and probe you with machines. Or, well, maybe another scientist in a research center. Like a neurologist. If this idea came to you as divine revelation, you would contract the James Randi Foundation, prove it is divine, and get the million dollars price. And call the Pope while you're at it. He could make you a Saint, or even better, a prophet.

[Donnadogsoth]

Since you used your brain to think and write this, you shouldn't trust this argument as true if you believe in it. So it is false and a self detonating complaint. If you used anything other than your brain to think please let me experiment on you and probe you with machines. Or, well, maybe another scientist in a research center. Like a neurologist. If this idea came to you as divine revelation, you would contract the James Randi Foundation, prove it is divine, and get the million dollars price. And call the Pope while you're at it. He could make you a Saint, or even better, a prophet.

 

Take the matter up with the materialists.  It's the logical endpoint of materialists' argument, and detonates on them taking their philosophy with it.  If you are a materialist, then you are detonated along with it. If you are not a materialist, then you must either be a solipsist, or else an idealist like myself.

 

You also misunderstand the scope of idealism. My mind encompasses ALL physical phenomena, and interfaces with ALL monads/principles. So when a machine alters my brain, it is me altering myself. There may be another monad involved, acting in pre-established harmony, but the “matter” of my “material brain” is all me. I am altering myself, as it were.

[Will Torbald]

Take the matter up with the materialists. It's the logical endpoint of materialists' argument, and detonates on them taking their philosophy with it. If you are a materialist, then you are detonated along with it. If you are not a materialist, then you must either be a solipsist, or else an idealist like myself.

 

You also misunderstand the scope of idealism. My mind encompasses ALL physical phenomena, and interfaces with ALL monads/principles. So when a machine alters my brain, it is me altering myself. There may be another monad involved, acting in pre-established harmony, but the “matter” of my “material brain” is all me. I am altering myself, as it were.

Alright Mr. Mind, use your powers to make me do something outside of my will. It's easy for you since I am just a figment of your own mind. Go ahead.

[Donnadogsoth]

Alright Mr. Mind, use your powers to make me do something outside of my will. It's easy for you since I am just a figment of your own mind. Go ahead.

 

Which of course I didn't say.  You are a monad, a mind encompassing its own physical phenomena, lawfully of course.

[Will Torbald]

Which of course I didn't say. You are a monad, a mind encompassing its own physical phenomena, lawfully of course.

You said you could interface with all monads, so you can affect me. Although you also said that you can affect machines since that would be you affecting yourself. Well, I'd like to see you trying to affect machines with your mind. Isn't that another conclusion of your idealism? How about this: Alter the servers of the forum to display images of unicorns, but only do it with your mind.

[Donnadogsoth]

You said you could interface with all monads, so you can affect me. Although you also said that you can affect machines since that would be you affecting yourself. Well, I'd like to see you trying to affect machines with your mind. Isn't that another conclusion of your idealism? How about this: Alter the servers of the forum to display images of unicorns, but only do it with your mind.

 

You're not referring to idealism but to omnipotent solipsism, which of course would give me no reason to prove anything to you as you wouldn't exist.

 

The interface is governed lawfully according to the pre-established harmony, where my will appears to affect your mind but in fact it is your mind affecting itself in terms of relationship with the universe as a whole. It is only by convenient convention that we say that monad A affects monad B. Both are regulated primarily in terms of their relationship to the universe as a whole. Example: You cut a pear with a knife. The knife (your will) moves downward, and the pear (another monad) divides itself. Strictly speaking, the knife did not cause the pear to divide, the knife-stroke and the pear's division happen simultaneously in accord with pre-established harmony.

[Kevin Beal]

The interface is governed lawfully according to the pre-established harmony, where my will appears to affect your mind but in fact it is your mind affecting itself in terms of relationship with the universe as a whole.

Could you provide a specific example? This is entirely too abstract for my feeble mind to comprehend.

[Will Torbald]

You're not referring to idealism but to omnipotent solipsism, which of course would give me no reason to prove anything to you as you wouldn't exist.

 

The interface is governed lawfully according to the pre-established harmony, where my will appears to affect your mind but in fact it is your mind affecting itself in terms of relationship with the universe as a whole. It is only by convenient convention that we say that monad A affects monad B. Both are regulated primarily in terms of their relationship to the universe as a whole. Example: You cut a pear with a knife. The knife (your will) moves downward, and the pear (another monad) divides itself. Strictly speaking, the knife did not cause the pear to divide, the knife-stroke and the pear's division happen simultaneously in accord with pre-established harmony.

 

So you're saying that when the knife cuts the pear, actually what happens is that the universe wanted the pear to open up and by coincidence it also wanted a knife to move in the same space the pear was occupying - and it only looks like the knife is cutting the pear, but it is actually an optical illusion. As I understand, this is a rejection of causality. Events don't cause other events, they just happen simultaneously with the appearance of causality, but it is a "harmony" that it looks like it is.

 

Another example would be if I were to throw you over the roof of a skyscraper. It only looks as if I am throwing you, and it looks as if you fall on the ground and splatter and die. It also looks as if I just committed murder, but in fact, it was the will of the universe in accordance to the harmony of the monads that you would die by high speed concussion with the concrete of the ground. Again, you can't prove that I caused your death because there is no causality. It was just the movement of the simultaneous fracture of your craneum with the ground, and the ground being very hard against your head. But the ground the never caused you to die, nor did I cause you to fall. It was all a convenient convention.

[Donnadogsoth]

So you're saying that when the knife cuts the pear, actually what happens is that the universe wanted the pear to open up and by coincidence it also wanted a knife to move in the same space the pear was occupying - and it only looks like the knife is cutting the pear, but it is actually an optical illusion. As I understand, this is a rejection of causality. Events don't cause other events, they just happen simultaneously with the appearance of causality, but it is a "harmony" that it looks like it is.

 

Another example would be if I were to throw you over the roof of a skyscraper. It only looks as if I am throwing you, and it looks as if you fall on the ground and splatter and die. It also looks as if I just committed murder, but in fact, it was the will of the universe in accordance to the harmony of the monads that you would die by high speed concussion with the concrete of the ground. Again, you can't prove that I caused your death because there is no causality. It was just the movement of the simultaneous fracture of your craneum with the ground, and the ground being very hard against your head. But the ground the never caused you to die, nor did I cause you to fall. It was all a convenient convention.

 

You're correct in both examples, except you do not account for the significance of will. It is your will to murder me and that makes you guilty. That the universe complies with your will is secondary to that fact, even though my actual murder will be of significance.

Could you provide a specific example? This is entirely too abstract for my feeble mind to comprehend.

 

I will to type the word “MONAD” and two things happen. One, it appears, as if by my action, on the computer screen before me. Two, it appears, as if by my action, on the computer screen before you. In your case, your sensorium is responding to your mind's interface with the universe as a whole, and the universe decides in those terms to have the word MONAD appear before you. The same with my case.

[Will Torbald]

You're correct in both examples, except you do not account for the significance of will. It is your will to murder me and that makes you guilty. That the universe complies with your will is secondary to that fact, even though my actual murder will be of significance.

 

Will and your idealism are completely incompatible. There is no line of reason joining a universe that splits a pear in two and a person willing to cut the pear with a knife at the same time. It's completely opposite.

[Donnadogsoth]

Will and your idealism are completely incompatible. There is no line of reason joining a universe that splits a pear in two and a person willing to cut the pear with a knife at the same time. It's completely opposite.

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

[Des]

iro = in regards of?

 

Also, if one's brain is merely an agglomerate of fundamental particles of matter, which move each in obedience to immutable physical laws, then all states of one's brain are also merely in obedience to physical laws, and have therefore no necessary relation to the truth.  Ergo, one's confidence level in the truths revealed by one's brain should be 0.

Anyone who has zero confidence in his predictions can either be my controlled robot, or just stay out of my way - as long as he has no confidence in his predictions, he isn't going to tell me he knows my predictions are wrong, so I will try give him orders, and alternately just ignore him.

 

Sorry, yes, in respect of.

 

It is those who tell me how an omnipotent being is going to respond to my decisions (and think their prediction is on target), that I choose to debunk here.

 

I have confidence in my brain's predictive ability based on my memory of past successes and failures in prediction. I'm going to predict anyway, and I will make the reasonable assumption that the really poorly-predictive brains were de-selected by evolution.

 Will they protest with "but god wouldn't do that!"? 

[from now on I'll use wrt, not iro]

 

Yes, an omnipotent god could make billions of people feel very confident about what god would or would not do, and then that omnipotent god could do something else.

Billions of people re-assuring each other about the intentions of Loki who is wearing the father-god mask.

[Des]

Will and your idealism are completely incompatible. There is no line of reason joining a universe that splits a pear in two and a person willing to cut the pear with a knife at the same time. It's completely opposite.

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

I've predicted the consequence to me, if I were to cease to assign blame/responsibility/causality to other living organisms for what appears to me, to be their actions. I predict that that decision would harm my ability to predict, so I won't make that decision.

 

If I say that Ug the caveman tosses up a microwave oven and attempts to header it like a soccer ball, then I predict that your mind will do some predictive imagination of the consequence to Ug's head.  I have some confidence in the correctness of my prediction and in the correctness of your predictions.

 

Now if the people with whom my senses tell me I am interacting, were to give me very disparate predictions in the many, many instances of predictive thinking that I seem to encounter each day, then I might quit having confidence in my predictive abilities. Similarly, if I had memories of my own wrong predictions and did not have explanations to explain my past errors, my confidence would likely be less.

 

I'm here absorbing data that helps me to predict. Throw me words which assist me to refine my predictive capacity, or throw me words which actually reduce my confidence in my predictions - what words I get, I will adjust to.

 

I don't have to know that the universe does obey immutable physical  laws, I only need to estimate that my memory record indicates that when I have used physical laws in the prediction process, my predictions have been successful wrt the use of the laws. Those memories will prompt me to continue the usage. This explains why an absence of knowledge of the actual existence of, immutability of, and source of the laws: does not affect my confidence in my predictions.