₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
I objected to a world of absolutes. I conceive of a world where there is no pain and suffering but not in the absolute sense ie such a world will still have you recoil if your bare foot felt fire while in yours it would not.

Lol. Let me ask; is pain absolute in this world? Lets be sure exactly what we are talking about here.

Because objective qualities are either absolute or they don't exist. There is no such thing as this thing exists but it doesn't exist really.

It is either pain exists or it doesn't.

So lets be sure, what do you mean by "absolute pain"?

LordReed:
And I told you that you were arguing for a world of absolutes which is essentially dead. My conception does not arrive at an absolute end to emotion, desire or appetite.

Uuuuhm, i am arguing that a world with pain, suffering, desire is necessary. A world without these is meaningless.

You objected.

CoolUsername:
Why not both? Man is made up of his consciousness and his body, Johnydon in Lordreed's body is just that: Johnydon in Lordreed's body and vice versa. Like Takeshi Kovacs in a new sleeve, if you're familiar with Altered Carbon,

In essence, two new beings would have been created. Johnydon's body would effect change in Lordreed's behaviour. For example, say Johnydon is athletic where Lordreed is overweight, this could encourage the latter to lead a more active lifestyle. Likewise, Lordreed's habits that caused him to be overweight can be carried over to Johnydon's body.

Edit: Alternatively, let's look at it this way: Johnydon in Lordreed's body would identify as Johnydon while everyone else would identify him as Lordreed. What makes him think that he hasn't gone insane? Maybe some rare form of body dimorphic disorder?

In a world where people can change their bodies to better fit the gender they identify as, given that gender reassignment has been said to reduce the anxiety and depression associated with gender dysphoria. Maybe a case can be made that Johny in Reed's body is still Johny, since he identifies as Johny. What do you think?

In otherwords, two new beings being created means the initial Johny and Reed no longer exist but if they do, doesn't this bring the total to 4?

frank317:
A world infinite second chance...



Hmmmmm a new novel loading in my crazy mind.

What does it mean?

Because a world of infinite second chances sounds like a world with eternal life.

You can't get infinite second chances if you don't have infinite life

HappyPagan:
Without pain, joy's value drops.

Exactly, thank you. LordReed i believe you and i have once argued over this. Where i argued negative things are absolutely necessary for purpose and meaning.

MrPresident1:
The ideal world is the one ruled by the God of Thunder, YES!

And YES He is back!

Revelation 2:27
And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

I hear you bro ?, i hear you

budaatum:
My concern would not be the natural factors since I've created living things imbued with an ability to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth".

So, the world we live in now is already as good as it can get?

finalboss:
World without religion.

How would a world without religion be better?

And religion is quite man-made doesn't sound like a natural evil, or is it?

budaatum:
I kind of like the world as it is myself. I think its just about the best possible world one can get unless one wanted it flat. But then, where would you put the oceans, the mountains, Venus, Mars and the Sun? It would be odd if earth were flat as paper, and most likely wouldn't work.

The people though, I'd change. My ideal world is a world that's full of people who use their brains. School would have to be good, of course, with lessons that educate the mind and not indoctrination. If people use their brains, this world would be full of smart people and very close to my ideal.

When i say Ideal i don't mean man made things like schools etc.

I'm mostly referring to natural factors as implied, you as the omniscient being would set as a default state

HappyPagan:
No world. Nothing cooler than not existing....

Hahahaha so literally it is impossible to make a better world than this?

Martinez39:
johnydon22, are you seeing this? You really need a well rounded education

Don't sweat it bro, Mr President's brand of weed is divine.

otiwisdom:
So nairaland I have being in argument with most of the atheist of nairaland and I have seen that they are afraid to accept God as their creator.

Afraid? When it is literally the easiest thing to do.

The devil have influence their mind with worldy things to the extent,they are afraid of following God because they if they follow the ways of God they might loose those precious things.

The good ol they want to sin cliche. I could bet my balls you are no more a better person that most atheist here.

If you need belief in God to stop you from being a douchebag then you really are a douchebag

Secondly they are confused,their state of mind is not at rest.

A subtle thought that is in error may yet give rise to fruitful inquiry that can establish truths of great value.

Most of them don't have enough evidence to back up their claim why they don't believe in Christ.

They actually do.

1. lack or deficiency of evidence from the proponents
2. Over-reliance on faith by proponents
3. Unreliability of source material
4. Lack of or unauthentic archeological findings
5. Sheer absurdity of the claims
6. Over-usage or reliance of source material on folklore and borrowed myths

And most especially, the onus is more on you to provide enough evidence why they should

You will ask them question and before you known they will start spiting trash.

We all have our deficiencies in arguments but i particularly have seen your propensity to cognitive dissonance

Lastly,they are tool in which the devil is using to pull out the believers from Christian race because the Bible said many are called few are chosen and

Hey dude, you are the one who believes in the devil here, don't bring us down to your problem.

also if you can remember was Jesus said to Thomas "blessed are they that have not see but yet believe"

Exactly, that sounds like what a con-man would say

ABCthings:
Biscuit bones everywhere!

hahahahahahaha thats just wrong. lol

UceeGod:
If I point you the proof a million times, you'll still not see it because you don't have the eyes to see it.

The eyes is called FAITH

If it is faith, how can proof be part of it my guy?

LordReed:
No, LordReed's mind in johnydon22's body won't be recognised by biometrics as LordReed.

Oh alright.

UceeGod:
Because you're blind to the proof doesn't mean there is no proof.

The blindness is your choice

You can bring forth the proof though

otiwisdom:
So you are telling me that if you buy a telescope from a shop and you look outer space through the telescope and you saw a planet then you will believe that there is a planet, but now you all are saying that the Bible was written by men to deceive people.So how are you sure that the telescope was not built by men to deceive people.

Nobody claims the telescope was created by a God, the telescope don't come with a promise of a transcendent knowledge made by a transcendent entity

The bible comes with such claims and frankly fails to establish enough awe to give credence to such outrageous claim.

otiwisdom:
Question to you:why do you believe that there exist another planet outside earth but you have not seen.
Blessed are those that believed but have not see

That's not a belief, they can be proven. In fact quite literally you see planets all the time.

I have heard so many argue that this universe, this world is quite flawed mostly due to the existence of things we may philosophically refer to as Natural evils. Famine, hunger, diseases, dangerous animals, natural disasters, death and what not.

Even though personally i think things we refer to as evil are necessary - Topic for another day.

I'd like to experiment on this a bit, create a hypothetical universe.

Assume you are in the position of an All-powerful entity, you want to create a world, what type of world, what model of world do you imagine right now to be the ideal world?

LordReed:
Two new things now exist. The Lordreed mind looks down at the johnydon22 body and instantly recognises that this is not the body of my memories ergo I am not me anymore. This segues into the problem of identity, what now does the Lordreed mind in the johnydon22 body call himself? He obviously can't go to my wife and say hey it's me your husband, she will not recognise him. Neither will our now advanced biometric identification systems recognise him as Lordreed. He has functionally become a new person.

Wait, you are saying biometrics won't recognize LordReed with johny's mind as LordReed anymore?

BeLookingIDIOT:
Sure,consciousness defines man or you won't have been asking the question.
For the Loodreeds analogy,I find that confusing thou...What is your conception of consciousness and mind?

Ok, let me use spirit. Johny's body LordReeds spirit and vise versa.

Is that body still Johny or Reed?

LordReed:
I think you've uncovered another problem, that of identity. Is the ship still the SS Olympian if all of its parts has been changed? The ship remains SS Olympian in identity but it is no longer the same ship. It remains the SS Olympian in the minds and paper work of those concerned because that for us that is how identity works, identity is tied to recognition, that is as long as you can continuously recognise a particular thing then its identity is established. If for instance you have a purple cup, everyday you drink from the cup then someday, you have no idea when it occurred, the cup was replaced with an identical cup. In your mind because you do not know someone has replaced the cup, it continues to be the purple cup. The day you are told this is a different cup, it ceases being the purple cup and becomes the 2nd purple cup.

But objectively the cup is no longer the purple cup you are used to whether you know it or not right? Only that identity requires a conscious mind to be established, innit?

For the ship, you are saying that it is now a different ship but its identity remains intact?

Can't we say same for Either Johny or Reed. The (Johny's body with Reeds mind) is still Johny in identity according to several documents bearing my passport and name?

adoyi8:
he will think he is lordreed just as you now think that you are the same johnydon22 of 20 years ago which in reality you are not.

But are they still Johnydon and Lordreed?

adoyi8:
even without transfer of consciousness our past selves are different from us due to our subsequent experience.

But our past selves is still us?

LordReed:
Yes.

I'd argue for the consciousness (Playing the devils advocate here)

Let me give you another analogy here. Some voyagers went on a voyage to go around the earth, they had engineers to help them repair the ship in case of damages.

This ship was named SS olympian.

Once a part of the ship damages, the engineers replaces it and they keep on doing this for the duration of the journey until every part of the ship has been replaced at one time or another.

Is this ship still the SS olympian or a new ship?

adoyi8:
The new being with lordreed's mind and johnydon22's body will think he is lordreed because he has lordreeds memory, experience etc. but in reality he is not the same person.

But he is not either Johnydon nor LordReed right?

orisa37:
His Sex organs and his Reproductive Powers.

I don't understand. Elaborate?

LordReed:
My opinion is that man has become a being greater than the sum of its parts. Yet man is a sum of parts and in our consideration here, a sum of mind and body.

In our scenario I think that if a mind is transferred from one body to another, it is no longer either the new host or the previous host; it becomes a new being. So for our example the LordReed/Johnydon22 mergers become new persons in their own rights neither of them is LordReed or Johnydon22 anymore.

In otherwords, neither LordReed nor Johnydon22 exists anymore?

This topic is tricky and i am going to present it with some hypothetical scenarios.

So, it is no news that there are two main thought classes on what a man is, on one hand you have;

Man is spirit class: this posits the existence of an eternal transcendent soul which is the true man, this position posits that the body is just like a cocoon the spirit drives and at death, the spirit abandons this cocoon and goes back to its original state.

Man is matter class: This school of thought argues man is just matter and nothing else. Consciousness is a product of an intricately highly arranged matter.

These two schools of thoughts regarding the nature of man isn't really our primary concern for this thread rather if consciousness defines man.

On this hypothetical scene, Johnydon22 and LordReed are sitting across each other.

Then somehow they swap consciousness, the consciousness of Johnydon goes into LordReed while LordReed's goes to Johnydon which means (Johny's body with LordReed's mind) and (LordReed's body with Johny's mind)

Which is truly LordReed and which is Johny?

Is man his consciousness or his body?

frank317:
Assumption of values by who? It starts with individuals and this to me it the basis of morality.

Whatever happens collectively is only secondary. We cannot overlook the individual mindsets where the ideas originated from.

I do believe we are talking about two entirely different things then because basis is not referring to people who hold the ideas but rather the underlying foundation for an idea in the case of morality is the belief in the assumption of value.

And again, individuals conceiving moral points do not make these moral points valid, the validation of a moral position comes from collection of intertwined beliefs.

frank317:
these days, u seem to want to complicate simple issues

And that's the problem, i am not complicating simple issues, i am simply telling you the issues you think are simple aren't at all simple.

And that's why it becomes very hard to understand.

I am pretty sure that after this time, most of you here will surely begin to understand moral arguments more and how they work.

At least won't use another moral conclusion as a basis for a moral conclusion.

You shouldn't always hold a simplistic belied, we can always go beyond that and understand the subject even further.

frank317:
Oga, humans, weather majority or minority decide what is moral or not based on (collective)interest and how affects them. it starts from each individual thinking alike and going ahead to propagate it as moral.

you are busy screaming jeez! and WTF!, why is this simple analogy difficult for u to grab?

Have i argued that God decides morality? Morality is derived through a basic derivative method and the beginning of this method is the assumption of value and this is the argument; the basis of morality. You are probably reading the back of your phone to come up with this non-sequitur above.