According to the definition, people who plug in into the machine can and only can experience pleasure. My argument against it would be like the following:

1. The existence of something depends on the existence of something opposite to it.
2. Pleasure is one of these things.
3. Pleasure depends on the existence of its opposite, which is pain.
4. In the hypothetical experience machine, only pleasure exists.
5. In the hypothetical experience machine, pain does not exist, so neither does pleasure.
6. One definition of a thing cannot conflict with another definition of it.

Conclusion： Experience machines cannot exist. — Howard

First, welcome to the forum.

Some thoughts:

1. The existence of something depends on the existence of something opposite to it.
2. Pleasure is one of these things.
3. Pleasure depends on the existence of its opposite, which is pain.

Certainly not true for everything. What things is it true for? Maybe only true for distinctions, comparisons. Anyway - Lao Tzu says (Stephen Mitchell translation of the Tao Te Ching, Verse 2):

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

In "The Wisdom of Insecurity" Alan Watts wrote:

...consciousness must involve both pleasure and pain, to strive for pleasure to the exclusion of pain is, in effect, to strive for the loss of consciousness. Because such a loss is in principle the same as death, this means that the more we struggle for life (as pleasure), the more we are actually killing what we love.

4. In the hypothetical experience machine, only pleasure exists.
5. In the hypothetical experience machine, pain does not exist, so neither does pleasure.

This seems true, although I don't know the facts about the physiology of pleasure. It is certainly true for our closest analogs to the experience machine - drugs and alcohol.

6. One definition of a thing cannot conflict with another definition of it.

Sure it can. Definitions are human things. Just hang around the forum for a while. It happens all the time.

And its pretty sad to see someone presumably over the age of 10 resorting to the good old "I know you are but what am I" anyways. — Seppo

Actually, this is one of my favorite philosophical arguments, as elucidated by that great American philosopher P.W. Herman.

You've started three discussions but have only made one comment. You've never commented on the discussions you started other than the opening post.

If you're not going to participate fairly, especially in the threads you start yourself, get lost.

To briefly summarize Kastrup’s metaphysics in my own words and from my own understanding of it: all that exists is one (inherently spaceless and timeless) consciousness, and each metabolizing organism is a dissociated localization of this one consciousness. He uses the analogy of dissociative identity disorder (DID) from psychology to express how the one consciousness localizes (dissociates) itself into seemingly many subjects. The inanimate universe as a whole that we all perceive is simply what the one consciousness looks like from our dissociated perspectives. As a naturalist, Kastrup does not believe that the one consciousness in its “pure” form is intrinsically self-reflective like we are, since it did not undergo the evolutionary process that we did. — Paul Michael

There is a myth about one of the Hindu gods that I like a lot. @Wayfarer wrote about it in a previous thread. This god was lonely, so to create someone to play with, he split himself up into all the myriad things in the world and then made them all forget they were part of him. Did I get that right, Wayfarer?

Kastrup's idea is a myth just like the one described above. You don't need to disprove it. There's no way to test it one way or another. That's what metaphysical positions all have in common. They're not true or false. You pick the one that works best for you.

the most popular arguments against Teleology are statistical quibbles. — Gnomon

I'm not equipped to make statistical arguments one way or the other. — Gnomon

They aren't "quibbles." And they aren't arcane, sophisticated mathematics. They are just about the most basic possible statistical and probabilistic judgements. Let's say I have a box. You can't see inside the box so you don't know if there's anything in it. I tell you there are somewhere between 1 and 1,000 marbles in it. I reach in and pull out a black marble and show it to you, then put it back in the box. Now, can you tell me how many black marbles there are in the box? All you can tell me is that it's at least one and no more than 1,000, assuming I'm telling the truth. If I reach back in the box and pull out a marble at random, what is the probability it will be black?

We can't tell the likelihood of pulling a black marble out of the box and we can't tell the likelihood that other possible universes will have life in them.

I expected some science-based arguments against the notion of progress in evolution. Instead, all I get are absolute denials, and two word arguments : " . . . . . because science" , with no evidence or logic. — Gnomon

This is not true. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, I made a very simple argument based on probability and statistics why the anthropic principle and fine tuning argument are not needed to explain conditions in the universe we happen to find ourselves in. A quick summary:

We only have access to information from one universe, this one right here. It is impossible to estimate the likelihood of an event when we have information from only a single sample from a population of unknown size. For that reason, we have no basis for estimating the probability of there being intelligent life in our universe or any universe. And for that reason, there is no basis or need for speculation about an anthropic principle, fine-tuning argument, or multiverse to address this issue.

Excerpts from posts by outraged believers in random rather than regulated Determinism :
"information on beliefs"
"I believe this is not true."
"do not believe"
"I don't believe"
"I reel in terror" — Gnomon

I've underlined my contribution to your list. In what sense does "I believe this is not true," represent outrage? All it means is that I think you're wrong. And for the record, I am not a believer in "random determinism." I don't think determinism is a useful way of looking at the world in most situations.

I think calling my contribution "outraged" is a sign of your lack of perspective on this subject.

I don't think an experience of a god - even if I grant that the experience is genuine - counts as an explanation of anything God is said to have done or wants from humans. The experience explains the experience and may well count as proof of God by the believer, but it does not provide an elucidation of anything further. — Tom Storm

First off, as I've made clear in the past, I am not a theist and don't have any particular religious beliefs. Still, if someone has experienced God directly within a religious tradition, it seems to me it would make faith in the tenets of that tradition a reasonable response. People say there is no evidence for God, but there is.

I am impressed by the opinions of Foolso4 and Olivier. — god must be atheist

Agreed. I've been impressed by this whole thread. Great discussion.

Martyrs are supposed to die, for a cause, and Gandhi did not. — god must be atheist

He was assassinated in 1948.

But he shamed some oppressors with the suffering he imposed on his own self.

The same that shook the world is the common thread between Gandhi and martyrdom. — god must be atheist

Gandhi and Martin Luther King risked their lives and were killed. They did not intend to die. That was my point. They didn't intentionally sacrifice themselves. I wasn't clear enough.

if ineffable, then what's up with all the preaching anyway...? Weird. — jorndoe

People gotta talk. Not God's fault.

Gods have no explanatory power. — Tom Storm

I think that's not true. People experience God. You may claim that they are experiencing something else, something more mundane. Or you may claim they are deluded. I don't think they are, but it doesn't matter. God does have explanatory power. Not to you, clearly. But that doesn't disqualify the experience other people have or God's value to them.

You are one of the most moderate atheists here on the forum. You don't share the rabid obsession of some. But your lack of imagination limits your understanding.

And welcome to the forum.

How many theory ( I'll never use the term 'believe' in this forum ;) ) that your reality depends
mostly on what you focus on and if you stop paying mind to something that it no longer has any weight on your personal environment even if it is affecting others around you? — Pixel Blast Chamber

Anything that affects the people around me will affect me also. I'm sure that's not the answer you are looking for. Perhaps you should clarify your post.

There is one correct, logical, complete answer. — DavidJohnson

Sorry, no. @jamalrob is right.

First, notice what I said in the first sentence: "before God created time and space." It is undoubtedly absurd to talk about 'before," or to use any temporal language to describe the period (another temporal term) before God created time and space. After all, there is no time, so how can we talk about a time before time existed? — Raymond Rider

This is a human language problem, not a theological one. Language paradoxes don't limit God's abilities.

This brings about the "second time problem." If time has always existed, then why did God create everything else when He did? Why did He choose that specific point in time to create the universe? — Raymond Rider

Again, God is not limited by your limited understanding. This is a human contradiction, not a theological one.

You can't play gotcha with God. There are plenty of good reasons why he might not exist, the two you have provided are not them. They.

Someone here is a buffoon. I'm not ruling out the possibility that it's me, but I don't think so. — jamalrob

A couple of thoughts:

• There is no reason you both can't be buffoons.
• You might be a buffoon, even if you are correct on this issue.

Someone here is a buffoon. I'm not ruling out the possibility that it's me, but I don't think so. — jamalrob

I didn't think we were allowed to imply new members are buffoons till they've submitted 20 posts.

Right, and as already noted its completely speculative and baseless, and the fine-tuning argument in particular rests on a claim about probability that can't be sustained. The only form of the anthropic principle that is credible is the so-called "weak" anthropic principle, which is more or less just a tautology. — Seppo

People who believe in the quantum multiverse or the anthropic principle are like people who think that if you flip a coin four times and get four heads you are more likely to get a tail than a head on the fifth flip.

111 — jamalrob

There is no way we can know what kind of answer you are looking for, given that you reject correct answers. — jamalrob

I'm with Jamalrob. And welcome to the forum.

I don't think Jesus intended to die on that cross either. — Olivier5

Agreed.

I was just making a relevant distinction between Empirical scientists, who get their hands dirty, and Theoretical scientists, who get callouses on their pencil fingers. Albert did no physical experiments, and he used mathematics only to translate his qualitative subjective scenarios into the universal language of logical relationships. — Gnomon

This is baloney. Read some of his papers. They are rigorous and heavily mathematical. Even though he did not do experiments himself, this work has been tested over and over and found to be correct. His work is not "qualitative" although he worked hard to explain his findings to non-technical readers in a non-mathematical way. Much of modern physics is based on the work he did.

No, not really. The anthropic principle merely tells us that there is a selection effect on any observations we can make, in virtue of the fact that we exist in the first place to make those observations. — Seppo

There are two principles. The weak anthropic principle is as you say - it's a restatement of the obvious, i.e. we live in a universe where conditions suitable for human life exist. The strong anthropic principle is different. It states that the improbability of the conditions we find ourselves in here means that the universe must have been set up to promote the evolution of humans or someone like us. It's the fine tuning argument.

It's not martyrdom indeed, but the idea is very similar: the weak testifies of a scandal by facing the strong in a totally asymmetric manner. — Olivier5

I don't think Gandhi gave his life to be a symbol to his people. I think he risked his life as part of a tactic to gain freedom for his people. There's a big difference.

Yes, yes. I know I'm being a nitpicker. I shouldn't go off on a tangent.

I suspect that you think I'm making a scientific claim, when I say that "evolution is qualitatively progressive". But, since I'm not a scientist, I don't make authoritarian statements about the quantitative mechanics of physics. I do however cite those "soft" scientists, such as Einstein, who are more theoretical & philosophical than empirical & technological. — Gnomon

My problem with this is that the question of whether or not evolution is progressive is not a qualitative soft science or metaphysical question. As I said - it's either right or it's wrong, and I believe it's wrong.

And calling Albert Einstein a "soft scientist" is about as inaccurate a description as I can think of.

Certainly. But I think that the points I brought up reflected or implied that ... — Alkis Piskas

I don't think you and I have any beef. Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, we're agreeing with each other.

It was used by Gandhi — Olivier5

Gandhi was not a martyr. Peaceful disobedience is not martyrdom.

I changed the first sentence of my first paragraph to read "If a significant number of qualified people don't think something is self-evident, it's not self-evident at all," because I think the way it was originally was ambiguous.

Denial is easy; understanding is hard.

Obviously, if you doubt that evolution is progressive, then it's not "obvious or self-evident" to you. — Gnomon

If a significant number of qualified people don't think something is self-evident, it's not self-evident at all. Calling something self-evident requires a consensus among the parties to the discussion. There's no consensus here. And it's not just between you and me, I'm talking about people who understand the specifics of evolution better than we do.

It is even quite apparent in biology, as "progressive speciation" is well documented, despite the occasional extinction events. — Gnomon

Whether you call the apparent increase in complexity & organization "progressive" depends on your personal perspective. As you can see from the excerpts below there are plenty of experts to whom biological progression is obvious. — Gnomon

I will acknowledge that the complexity of life has increased over the last 500 million years since the the Cambrian Explosion, but that's because it started out with bacteria, the simplest organisms possible. There was nowhere to go but more complex. But that's not progress or purpose. That doesn't show that evolution is directed. It's just probabilities. If you start with 100 black marbles in a box and then start exchanging one marble at a time at random, black marbles for white ones and white marbles for black; eventually you will end up with 50 black marbles and 50 white. That doesn't show progress toward diversity of marble color.

Whether you call the apparent increase in complexity & organization "progressive" depends on your personal perspective. — Gnomon

No. It doesn't depend on personal perspective. Somebody's right and somebody's wrong. I think I'm right. Am I 100% positive? No, but I'm certain enough to make the claim I have made.

As you can see from the excerpts below there are plenty of experts to whom biological progression is obvious. — Gnomon

I never said there weren't a lot of people who think evolution is progressive. But as I said, if there is not a consensus, it is not obvious.

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle implies that the evolution of the cosmos is teleological. — Gnomon

My skepticism for the strong anthropic principle is as strong as my skepticism about progressive evolution. It's not science it's.... I don't know what it is.

Every bit of this is incoherent. Reality is objective. It's not a metaphysical claim, it's a physical one. As in, physics. Nothing about your position is clear. — Garrett Travers

As I said, let's leave it at that. We're not getting anywhere.

I hope you will pardon me if I don't respond directly to your categorical claim that my expressed opinions are incorrect. — Gnomon

I don't believe evolution is progressive, but that's not what I argued. All I argued is that the position that evolution is progressive is not obvious or self-evident. It's not hard to deny.

A reality doesn't have to exist for objects in it to interact? — Garrett Travers

I didn't say there is no reality, I said there is no objective reality. I didn't even say that. I only said there are other ways to look at reality.

Objective means, in the context that we're talking about : not dependent on the mind for existence. — Garrett Travers

Yes, that's what I mean by objective reality.

actual. — Garrett Travers

By calling objective reality "actual," you seem to mean it is the common everyday reality people deal with. That's not the only, or necessarily the best, way of looking at it.

So, again, I'm going to need that example of something that exists that provides no evidence of itself existing. — Garrett Travers

So, again, I never said anything about something that exists that provides no evidence of itself existing. You're doing it again - using our everyday experience of reality as evidence that objective reality exists when the question on the table is whether we need the idea of objective reality to explain our everyday experience of reality.

I think acting as if there is an objective reality can be a useful way of seeing things, but it is not the only way of seeing things. And it is not necessarily always the best way of seeing things. Again, objective reality is a metaphysical entity. It's not true or false, it's just assumed. No, I don't want to get into a discussion of metaphysics. I've spent enough time doing that for a while.

Let's just leave it at that.

Then you are going to have to provide an example of something extant that does not present itself as observable via evidence, given the ability to perceive such a thing through either the senses, or instruments created to detect it. Otherwise, you are saying something that is incoherent. — Garrett Travers

Observing something by evidence does not require there to be an objective reality. You keep saying it's self-evident, but it's not. Then you go on to claim that interacting with reality in any way requires an objective reality, which is begging the question. I agree with Joshs:

To claim that there is one true reality that we can attain through empirical reason, above and beyond our perspectival access to the world, is confusing an assumption with an absolute truth. — Joshs

You have just demonstrated that you perceive that reality by talking within it with someone else also in it, through objective hardware, designed by objective technological standards, to send such messages as contain your objective statement of the objective meaning of reality in association with perception, which you could not have done without perceiving the objective reality within which you objectively chose to operate. But, we can play pretend all day if you want. — Garrett Travers

I didn't say there is no reality. I said that there are other valid ways of interacting with reality that do not assume an objective reality. Even that wasn't my main argument, which is that the existence of objective reality is not self-evident.

If there were no reality, you'd not have been able to send such a message to me, which simply verifies that the only reality to speak of is the one we occupy. — Garrett Travers

Again, I didn't say there is no reality. I only said that its existence is not self-evident. It is not the only way of seeing things that is consistent with human experience of reality.

As you noted, the experts are not unanimous in their assessment. Positive progression is a matter of interpretation, and the scope of your worldview. — Gnomon

If we are agreed on that, then we agree on the claim this:

Philosophers, through the ages have mostly agreed that our world appears to be designed, and tried to guess the intentions of the designer. Their conjectures may prove wrong in the details, but agree on the general direction : upward.
— Gnomon

That evolution is progressive is hard to deny.
— Gnomon

As I noted, I believe these statements are incorrect. — T Clark

That's all I claimed. You have not responded to that claim. Many people like to claim that their positions are unquestionable, self-evident, when they are not. That's what you have done.

References won't convince you, if you are not looking at them from an open-minded perspective. — Gnomon

Again - you're not responding to the claim I made.

For example, reverse the timeline in the image below --- is the athletic ape better than the couch potato? Now substitute the image below for the blob, and do you see any progress? :joke: — Gnomon

I think the illustration you have provided is enlightening. It shows evolutionary "progress" from chimpanzee to human, but humans are not ancestors of chimpanzees. I think that shows the oversimplicity of the argument you are trying to make.

Objective reality is a recognition of a self-evident, self-emergent, productive, law abiding, patternized, immutable plain of existence. Not an assumption. — Garrett Travers

I disagree. I see the existence of objective reality as a metaphysical question, by which I mean it is an underlying assumption, what R.G. Collingwood calls an absolute presupposition. As such, it is neither true nor false. Collingwood and I are not the only ones who feel that way. That shows it is not "self-evident."

It can and does exist without the assumption of God. — Garrett Travers

The idea of objective reality is meaningless if there is no one who can perceive it.

Now, that doesn't mean one cannot postulate a super ordinate existence, but no evidence suggests such existence, thus one is reliant on making supernatural claims of an infinite variety. — Garrett Travers

I make no claims for anything supernatural. To call something "superordinate" there has to be something that is ordinate, which would be objective reality. So, your argument is circular.

I've only ever known people who believe in God to think along these lines. — Garrett Travers

I have no religious beliefs.

To NOT believe in the objective reality in which you live requires the belief in a god. — Garrett Travers

I got a bit lost in your discussion. Until I got to this sentence, I thought you were agreeing with me. I disagree with your statement. I don't think one needs to assume that either objective reality or God have to exist.

Certainly. An absolute reality requires a God. But people, so much misled by religious dogmas and bias of all sort,as well as lack of critical reasoning and undestanding, don't even treat God as something absolute. — Alkis Piskas

I wasn't making a statement about religion. What I wanted to say was about science. Science is supposed to replace religion, but it's underlying presuppositions are similar.

The bottom line is, I think, that such a absolute state is highly impossible to exist. But even if it does exist, we are not able to conceive it. anyway. — Alkis Piskas

Not to go off on a tangent, but I think objective reality is a metaphysical entity, not something that exists in the world. It is one of the unproven assumptions, presuppositions, of science and much of our daily experience of the world.

The vast majority of people (including "thinkers") believe there is and talk about an "objective" reality. Isn't this the "base" reality and the reality "outside of human observation", that you are talking about?

n such cases I use to ask, "If there is an objective a reality, who is out there to tell?" — Alkis Piskas

"Objective" reality appears to require an infinite, absolute viewpoint to at least be posited as possible. It does not currently seem possible, and were it to exist, we run into the problems above vis-á-vis our current conceptions of information. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It has always seemed to me that belief in an objective reality requires a belief in God. As you note, there has to be someone who can experience it, someone with "an infinite, absolute viewpoint."

Not that this is particularly relevant, I find I agree with you on all counts - re time, reality, imposed structures/'laws'. — Tom Storm

Thanks. If you and I agree on something, we must be right.