1. Welcome to the forums! Take a second to look at our Beginner's Guide. It contains the information necessary for you to have an easier experience here.

    Thanks and have fun. -NF staff
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Forum Skin Contest:

    Let us know if you’re participating or would like to participate in a forum wide skin contest. If so, please give us your opinions here.

    Dismiss Notice


  3. Voting for Graphic of the Week 50 -- Contest Central Banner is live! Click here and here to cast your votes!

    Voting for Photograph of the Week 54 -- Landscapes is also live! Click here and here to cast your votes!

    Entries for Graphic of the Week 51 -- Dragon Avatars are open! Click here to check it out!

    Entries for Photograph of the Week 55 -- Freestyle are open! Click here to check it out!

    -- Contest Central Staff
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Throw the dice to win Golden Sparkles for a month. Check this thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Humans are nothing more than objects.

Discussion in 'Philosophical Forum' started by Sabaku no Ira, Oct 16, 2005.

  1. Sabaku no Ira Mortius of Phyrexia

    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    OK, here's a statement that a voice in my head has made:

    "People are nothing more than a mixture of water, protein, minerals and fat. The so called personality and "soul" are nothing more than merely chemical reactions in the brain- when the brain dies, they die too, just like the sound of musical instruments disappear once the instruments are destroyed, and the electrical signals disappear inside a computer when the computer is switched off or destroyed. No one with a rational mind should have any more pity upon humans than s/he has for a computer. Therefore as a scientist there is no room for passion, or mercy. People are objects, nothing more."

    Discuss (and please provide evidence for what you're saying: solid evidence like stuff from scientific papers and experiments; or simply flame away).
     
    Tags:
  2. Near Seeker of Truth

    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Are you planning on having kids?
     
  3. Sabaku no Ira Mortius of Phyrexia

    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    That question is irrelevant to the topic, but no, I'm not.
     
  4. GSurge Brilliant Punk

    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Fascinatingly cliche and boring.
     
  5. Blue Well-Known Member Supporting Staff Retired Staff

    Messages:
    48,889
    Likes Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    To all would-be existentialist philosophers I respond: We're real enough to each other.

    Chemicals, casings, or computer programs - does it really matter?
     
  6. Lord Yu Active Member

    Messages:
    64,715
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    So by the definitions given this thread gives out the price of murder should just be a fat fine? I think not.
     
  7. Near Seeker of Truth

    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    I had a feeling you would say something like that. I just dont understand what causes you to feel so much hate for humanity. Does it truely give you peace thinking that way? Is there something so haunting from your past that lead you to this point of reasoning?

    I am not disagreeing with your statement, Everything in this world can fall under that description, yet there are differences, differences that dont seem to have an explaination. If Evolution was merely a way to insure survival, would cognition be necessary for that? Are Emotions that same guide to surivive for that cognition.

    If you play chess the outcome is inevitable, someone wins, someone loses. Why do people play? People are born, People die. That is the fate of life. If you cant feel compassion, hate, love, fear, joy, etc, there is no point in playing the game.
     
  8. Ticking_Clock Tick... Tock... Tick...

    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    I'll just go back to what Rene Descartes said, "I think therefore I am"
     
  9. Danny Lilithborne 我を愛する修羅

    Messages:
    4,116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    I think everyone who is either completely anti-creationist or pro-creationist needs to watch "Inherit the Wind", think about what the movie said, and then shut the fuck up with their retarded hyper nihilist theories of life.
     
  10. Sabaku no Ira Mortius of Phyrexia

    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Death and destruction are basically the only thing I'm comfortable with. The 2nd Law of Themodynamics must hold.

    You have evidence for that? Or it is just an irrational belief?

    Feelings and emotions only serve to obscure the rational mind and should not be allowed to exist.

    Oh, no. I'm not saying that we're not real: in fact it is because we are real that makes it so much fun to destroy each other. :):) An irrational belief, unfortunately.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2005
  11. maj1n Active Member

    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Sorry this is incorrect, it is because we are the same species, that we feel for each other.
    This directly ties to our chances of survival and our biological makeup.

    And is inherent in most species, most mother's cares initially, care for its young.

    People are objects, they are a physical thing.
    However your equatting objects with things like emotion and stuff, basically your saying that we, as objects, should have the same pity/sympathy whatever as other objects.
    This is false, because we are humans, thus we treat humans differently.

    Basically, our makeup wants us to increase the chances of survival, as a species the best way to do this is by caring for one another.
     
  12. Sabaku no Ira Mortius of Phyrexia

    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Finally I hear from you, maj1n. Now we can do this properly as we should in my humanity thread.

    Care from parent to child is inevitable, since a child has no defense from dangers- that I can understand. What I don't understand is why should people care for those who would compete with them for resources? Rhinoceros mothers chase away their "young" when they grow up. Shark mothers potentially can even feed on their grown-up child. I don't see how that has threatened their survival (in fact, most of them has survived even longer than us without change). Why should we be different? Why shouldn't we kill off our weaker ones so that only the strong are left? As Tsukiyomi mentioned in his other thread, there are already too many of us here: kill some of them off so that the strong ones will live. Without mercy, without passion, we don't need to help those who need it: let them die to give us, the rational and the stronger, room. We have 6 billion people in this world: one more isn't many, one less won't be missed.

    How can leaving the weaker ones behind increase our chance of survival?
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2005
  13. Yoshi Torchbearer

    Messages:
    11,286
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Cogito, ergo sum - I think therefore I am. Computers do not think. Machines do not think. Humans do. I'm sure someone else can elaborate on this, but I don't have the time, maybe I will later.
     
  14. maj1n Active Member

    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    aww thats sweet, you should pm me so i could get in earlier

    Because that would set a bad precedant, and with that mentality becoming popular, people would be killed and societal structure would collapse.
    Consider war-zones, or even Pakistan and Afganistan, and you can see the 'kill them' attitude, when prevalent, makes two opposing communities worse off.

    Because it promotes the 'help each other' mentality which in turn we have all experienced, such as the government public services.
     
  15. Nybarius Ennui Bores Me

    Messages:
    4,500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Quala implies quanta if the quanta in question is quala. -- Searle, in Children's Book Format.

    Hey, ever read any Philip K Dick? I recommend "We Can Build You" for you at the moment.
     
  16. princesstaco Tastes like...

    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    I read a book that came to that conclusion too. I tend to disagree with it.

    I don't think humans are objects and despite the astonishing lack of scientific evidence, I'd still like to believe in the soul. That we go somewhere after we die. Just a personal opinion though, not something I can argue for or try and make people believe.




    The computer may be shut off but the programming hasn't been destroyed or changed! At the destruction of an instrument, its sounds may be gone but the music it could potentially play has not been changed one bit!

    While the destruction of an instrument might momentarily stop the music, it doesn't prevent the playing of a good Mozart or Shostakovich. Maybe the mind is the same way. The desctruction of the body might momentarily stop a person's mind, but it doesn't necessarily stop the potential of that person's existance.

    If you think about it that way, it kindof makes you change your perspective on humanity. Maybe 'humanity' is more of an abstract concept than a physical entity. Instead of being the computer, I think humanity is more like the program. I think a 'human' is a set of ideas and emotions produced by a mind.

    Not trying to proove the existance of an afterlife or of the human soul here...just trying to justify in my mind that I am more than my physical make up.
     
  17. CoolBuu Farewell, Sweet Sharingan

    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Read "The Chambered Nautilus" by Oliver Wendell Holmes.
     
  18. Hellcrow Silly freak

    Messages:
    244
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    I'm just happy my body is made of something, and not imagenary... like a dream...
     
  19. Nybarius Ennui Bores Me

    Messages:
    4,500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    If it were, how would you know? Perhaps a property of the dream-stuff is that it seems real to you.

    As a matter of fact, there are many convincing arguments to be made that "life is but a dream". Here's a tech-heavy version of the old hypothetical that caught my fancy (hat-tip to my partner in crime shiftedShapes for bringing this to my attention):

    399animeshop

    Here's a crude version: the probability of a post-human society possessed of computing power capable of simulating our entire universe with relatively as few processor cycles as we today emulate NES games is non-zero, and thus an inevitability, given a vast enough space enough and time on the order of infinity. Since these conditions are met, the world as we know it is, indeed, a computer simulation. The author speculates that perhaps humanity is a science project on the nature of morality; just imagine how useful it would be to analytic-minded philosophers--and really scientists of every stripe--to be able to test their ideas about the human condition with a convicning simulation, perhaps reflective of their own society in its stripling days, although likely with variables tweaked as the investigative process demands.

    This raises a grip of questions. Foremost among them: if the simulation argument were proved true, would it matter? Would we be any different than we are for knowledge of our genesis? (Incidentally, religious zealout and pathological narcissist alike are most rankled, not by meeting with a viciously opposed viewpoint--a competing sect, a hater--but by complete indifference.)




    In the Bible, the Face of God is always brought up as an unknowable--despite the conversation Moses somehow had with him (consult your local Rabbi for some amusing, Talmudic explanations of this discrepancy). To behold the face of God! It would immolate Man, it is said. Just look at what became of the Nazis who tempted fate by glancing at his merest "to-do (and don't)" list for humanity, the Arc of the Covenant.*

    Personally, I think this is a gnostic reversal of meaning, constructed so as to be comprehensible to only the wisest of the literate class of the day+, while yet providing a sop for the the masses; a sort of ideographic chiasmus inserted as an easter-egg for the metaphysical sort. First some foundation: God, like the realm of infinity from which he draws his pedigree (or vice-versa), is a delicate, carrot-dangling concept which only holds weight if it is kept just out of reach. God is any real number +1 ad infintum. Try to imagine you're more creative than you are, or really anything that it is beyond the capability of man to imagine fully: there is your God.

    Fully fleshed out, He loses His form and devolves into a wraithlike absurdity; "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." In short: to behold the face of God wouldn't singe an eyebrow on the face of man; rather, it is the face of God which would be ashen at the end of the encounter. Luckily, the fantastical imagery that forms the lingua franca of modern religion is so familiar at this point in history that they are typically left unexamined. In the same way that very few people sit around pondering the randomness of pairing a cluster of sounds with a concept, for language is a dead coin, only the most childlike among us would stop to ponder the epic suspension of consensus reality that reading religious writ in the spirit it was written entails. For most who self-report as religious, Faith is nothing more than self-serving superstition with society's stamp of approval. It brings them luck at casinos, when it comes, but they never attend church. All those baroque tales of Yahweh molding man from clay, oceans boiling, and Lott's underage spelunking daughters seducing him &
    Spoiler: Bible Spoilers
    sexx0ring his br41nz 0ut!!11!one!
    with some apparently very powerful wine are just the gilding on the envelope.

    It's easiest to capture what I'm on about if you read early Christian writings, or writings from the foundational phase of any religion writings to be had, really. Or if you'd prefer a more personalized slant, try to procure the diary entries of an impressionable and hugely imaginative individual in his garden of youth attempting to grapple with the Serious issue of Religion. I found the experience similar to attending a standup comedy performance inspired by Philip Glass; infinite buildup--and break down, as well--no punch-line (despite a misleading succession of apocalypses).

    Apparently the very Holiness of the writ--derived from none other than itself, hint hint--kept the enlightened sage who wrote the stuff from snickering, in the same way that people who rocked some of the more gauche fashions of the 1980's were totally serious about how cool it was at the time.



    Now then, to address your initial post (which I feel I've already done in a roundabout way, but who knows, this post might get deleted for being off-topic): sure, humans are objects. So what? Morality is constructed: so what? Is it not possible to operate as both object and subject--if indeed there is any usefulness, let alone validity, in the distinction? And what precisely is your problem with Man, who I am led to believe you think was created in God's image, creating a system like Morality? Is "the creator" not a synonym for Our Lord?

    *(you know, in Indiana Jones...)

    +For the sake of argument, let's say the time of Ezra, since I don't buy the "J" argument Harold Bloom made such a fuss over, seeing as how he's a bloated crank whose main achievement--besided the abortive attempt to feel up Naomi Wolf's titties--is energetically attempting to convert the one good idea he had decades ago into a cultural monopoly (in a time when monopolies are in, but culture is anarchistically homogenous).
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2005
  20. Near Seeker of Truth

    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    WTF did you just say. jk, your a wordy bastard but I am finally getting use it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2005
  21. ez Jesus Christ

    Messages:
    41,719
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    "No one with a rational mind should have any more pity upon humans than s/he has for a computer. Therefore as a scientist there is no room for passion, or mercy. People are objects, nothing more.""

    Unlike a computer or a musical instrument, Humans are a natural part of this world. Therefore, how can you destroy an object that's a part of this world without a cause, unless of course you are a mad man. Killing another human isn't justifiable simply because we don't gain anything from it. Of course there are special circumstances when criminals need to be put to death, but that doesn't apply to the majority.
     
  22. Nybarius Ennui Bores Me

    Messages:
    4,500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Reader's Digest Version:

    1. Some contend that 'life, the universe, and everything' is a computer simulation being run by an advanced civilization. The reasons they would do such a thing are speculative.
    1a. Would this "ultimate answer" change anything about the human condition if it were true? It's still up to us to find meaning, even if we're just an advanced version of tamigotchi. If tamigotchi knew they were a passing consumer electronics fad, would they desire pixellated pellets any less for it?

    2. Religion's greatest strength lie in its absurdity, however, this strength can only operate so long as the absurdity is regarded with the utmost seriousness; much like signing yourself into a hotel-room with the name "I M Dickless," you've got to keep a straight face for it to work.
    2a. The more fully imagined your God, the more ridiculous he seems. Note the historical progression (in terms of popular appeal) away from the "pagan" tradition of lusty, human/all-too-human Gods such as Odin, Zeus, &c to an ill-defined question-mark which serves as a hatrack to hang superstitious sentiment on.
    2b. The hat-trick of modern religion is most easily seen in its gestational stages. Vivid examples can be found in the writings both of young religions and religious youths, each making a newbie attempt at containing divinity in a prison of pen and paper.
    2c. Luckily, once this work was done (it took centuries and in a sense is still ongoing, but the labor-pains and their accompanying funny faces and screamed profanities are over and the child-delivered), everybody who cares to can forget about the untenable axiom organized religion is founded on and just say "I have faith" or "I am spiritual" when asked about such matters on surveys, even despite displaying no outside evidence of such (IE, attending church regularly). If pressed about the matter, I suspect that most who claim to be religious (at least in the US, where I live) would say that the radical imagery in the Bible is just a nice window-dressing for their faith-based glee-club called The Church. Sort of like a porno having a good plot; a nice add-on if you buy the DVD, but not an essential feature by any means.
    3. I see parallels between the invention of God & the invention or morality, and further the invention of the self (which must eternally be re-created, both on an individual and a species-wide level) and I am trying to tease them out, but I am afraid you'll have to make like a cokehead copy-editor for that, and read between the lines.
     
  23. Raistlin-sama Have you been naughty or nice?

    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Basically he is saying that the probability of us living in an artificially created world is higher then the probability of us living in a natural world.

    This is due to the fact that computers are evovlving very fast, and scientists can foresee that they will be able to run an entire virtual world at some point (in the not to distant future). If this is true thousands upon thousands of these worlds will most likely be created. Therefore the possiblity of us living in such a world is 10000000...:1.

    Unless of course you believe that more then one world exsists.

    Ok, I guess that was more of my own knowledge in the area, then what he said, but oh well.
     
  24. Near Seeker of Truth

    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    I was kidding, really no need to make a reader digest version, but thanks I guess.

    If we were in such a world created by other humans though, how hard would it be not to temper with the simulation. Would there be indications of false reality? since it was created by the species?
     
  25. metalanime I like Tits

    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004

    Thats pretty much what I said in another post, referring to a study of a cannabalistic african tribe, some began to get a mad cow disease like illness that eventually cause death. When they researched it, they found that the people that didnt experience it had a gene different than people who did. The disease is cause by eating another of the same species, cows get it in the same way, only through thier troughs, like when they are contaminated with another cows substance.

    Anyway, they did tests on all different races and found that the place of the gene had 3 different variants. Two of which were immune to the effects of the disease. Upon that testing, they found that the mojority of the woulds population, in its distant past, probably took part in cannibalism and developed a resistance, and in that small detail, were stronger, than the ones who were effected by the disease.

    This is something that I feel applies to alot of different thing. Like the way we choose our mates. I would try to avoid a person who has a genetic history of illness, or obesity or even an ugly family. Why? Because if I ever do have kids, I want to try and ensure that they are healthier, with less risks, better looking, and overall stronger than other kids. Its not selfish, its preservation. I will do what I can to make my bloodline remain strong.
     
  26. Nybarius Ennui Bores Me

    Messages:
    4,500
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    It wouldn't necessarily be humans. Perhaps the simulators are simulating all possible permuations on the "sentient life" concept, and, improbable as it may be, we had to be one of them, and it just so happens to be us.
     
  27. Sabaku no Ira Mortius of Phyrexia

    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Thanks. You are one of those whom I respect within the forums.

    Most animal don't have societies. Tigers kill off each other if one invades another's territory;King snakes eats others snakes in order to reduce competition. You don't need a society, or even a community for that matter in order to function: we've been through a stage without society, and the fact that we're here proves that it isn't necessary for our survival.

    Besides, even with us trying to kill each other, it doesn't mean that we cannot form temporary alliances- we will still need them for reproduction (unless the cloning technology becomes advanced enough to clone people: but that's another story). It is just that after the necessity is dealt with, the alliance is dissolved.

    Does that mean that it is a propaganda, then? :p

    Even if there are "glitches", we wouldn't notice them since 1) if it is very rare the individual will find his own explanation and pass it away or 2) if it is more common scientists will still just explain it away by adding certain conditions to their laws. Eg: in the mid-20th Century scientists suspected that the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Matter doesn't apply to particle physics since they find strange things going on: energies suddenly becoming larger, particles suddenly getting heavier, etc. It was until they discovered more and more different types of sub-atomic particles that they find that they can still keep the Conservation laws in particle physics. Now, with quantum physics, weird things can be explained away by probability.
     
  28. Near Seeker of Truth

    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Its funny how the thought of a simulated world has stimulated interest in it so quickly at a personal level for me, Yet religion has the opposite affect. Maybe that what you were talking about, I gave up with all your metaphors and complex words that I would never understand without a deep 10 hour analysis, with your reference to religion. I apologize in that case.

    I dont want to get all matrix"y" but its interest to think of the world in that sense. Especially with mental disorders and drugs, you know glitches and all. People that arent "normal" could be a example of a mind rejecting the reality, I doubt it would that simple, but interesting possibilities.

    With the whole tempering thing I meant that someone or something doesnt leave the system alone. The temptation to play "God" after the simulation has been created.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2005
  29. opium4themasses Member

    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    The whole point he makes is that independent of the ultimate nature of reality the human condition remains the same.

    Nihilism seems to have the same problem of those who wish to stop at Descartes's ultimate limit of doubt. Each of these points are interesting only as part of a path but serve as poor ending points.

    We may live in a world devoid of any meaning that we don't give it but Who cares? We will still live and love and strive.
     
  30. maj1n Active Member

    Messages:
    3,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Not really the major point, animals that have society, are usually more advantageous to survive.

    Ahh but we can form even more alliances if we have the mentality of trust, love etc, so its still advantageous.
     
Loading...