secularmerlin

Perhaps but the last thing I want to be is a martyr so my empathy leads me to believe that martyrs in general would be better off without martyrdom.

Well I appreciate you not trying to convert me.

I am not qualified to diagnose mental illness. The only thing I think you are is unconvincing.

And how have you determined this?

Your posts are always so thought provoking. You are right that even something that seems evil might result in something that seems good. Of course it would have been even better if we could just treat each other as equals without anybody having to die to make it happen.

I think that the use of the male pronoun says more about the authors of the bible than about Yahweh (should that hypothetical being even exist).

Well that seems like rather a large stumbling block in the way of creating conciousness. To be honest I'm impressed with the idea of computers producing original music.

That's ok it's still a good story.

Thank you.

I definitely think it is possible that you are mistaking coincidence for causation. The default position in the absence of evidence is skepticism and the more extraordinary the claim the more justified that skepticism is.

That is fascinating. You don't have a link to a site or article about Stan's possible marriage to Diana do you?

So what your claiming is that the movement of impossibly distant stars has a direct effect on human behavior?

I had not even considered a computer that knows what music is only one that can create it. I don't know if we can make conciousness. I'm not sure what conciousness even is.

More or less though I don't claim to be certain that my mind exists.

There is no conclusive proof for or against the idea that some god(s) exist. The default position is skepticism .

Perhaps in the same way that a fictional character is real. 

Which is exactly why I am a soft solipsist.

That was a concise rehash of one of the most popular Satan myths. Thank you.

No disrespect meant.

Out of curiosity would you say that Loki or Hel is more analogous to the Satan of Christian doctrine or is there even an analogous figure in Norse myth?

Yes I have. That is besides the point hiwever since getting goosebumps will do. Do you think a computer will ever compose music that gives you goose bumps?

Then allow me to rephrase in order to avoid the tautology. Is there any evidence for or against the idea that our perceptions/experiences accurately reflect reality whatever that turns out to be? Indeed is there any objective reason for you to believe in me?

As the man of prophecy can you tell us how many conmen exist on the planet at this moment?

I do not claim to know what any solipsist thinks or believes other than myself.

Who are you talking about? Who is they?

Precisely. Do you have such evidence for or against the idea that our universe Is real?

I'm not sure to whom you are referring since I can speak only for myself and how I came to be a soft solipsist.

If you have any objective evidence that our shared experience reflects reality that I do not first have to presuppose our experience dies reflect reality present it please. I would honestly be relieved if I could be sure that I am real.

It's quite simple. I am a soft solipsist because there is inadequate proof that my personal experience reflects reality in any meaningful way.

It might and I behave as though it does but I can't be objectively certain.

I'm not sure what you mean by safe in this context.

Hard solipsism certainly seems nonsensical to me. It only makes sense to use your perceptions as a guide to navigating your experience and that means accepting "reality" on a provisional basis.

I am a soft solipsist and only because I can only be objectively certain of one thing and that is the fact that I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be totally illusory.

Now if we do accept that our experience reflects reality then we can discern certain facts from these experiences through application of the scientific method but first we must accept reality which my only reason for doing is as a convenience.

For example by accepting our shared reality as real I am able to have this conversation with you.

By starting point do you mean an axiomatic acceptance of your experience as reflecting reality?

Without first presupposing that anyone's personal experience more or less reflects any reality?

This is actually why a truly omnipotent being with no limits is logically impossible.

At best you could possit a maximally powerful being.

Do you believe in the devil?

If so who or what is the devil?

What effects does this being have on our world?

What makes this being objectively evil, if indeed it is inherently evil?

Would this being mind, do you think, if we call it Stan for the purposes of this discussion?

The most annoying thing about the idea that our universe isn't real is that you can't really prove the universe is real without making the supposition that the universe is real. Now I enjoy my life and pursue happiness because I am happy whether the universe is real or not but I just can't shake the realisation that my experience may be completely illusory.

I am a soft solipsist, which is to say that I am willing to accept that my senses reflect reality provincially as a convenience since this tends to make my experience more pleasant than if I were to ignore my perceptions of it.

Can anyone find a way to be certain that anything exists besides your experience in and of itself?

Would you consider a pedophile a person?

I just find that if I am firm in the difference between the two it is harder to muddy the waters, intentionally or unintentionally.

Hypotheses not theories. No serious scientist rejects the germ theory of medicine for example.

I've been thinking about it all morning. I'm not sure one can exterminate people without feeling. I think you have to trick yourself (or have someone do it for you) into thinking that they are not people, or at least that they are lesser people.

Then you assume that god is not truly omnipotent but only maximally powerful. 

If he can't do both at once then there is something he cannot do (make both scenarios happen at once) and he is still not omnipotent.

Unfortunately casten very little seems to have changed. The very fact that the genocides and crimes against humanity enumerated in the article are not in general as well known to the public as the holocaust speaks volumes about our ability to dehumanize others and to ignore that which we find upsetting.

I think you don't listen to enough classical music. That is pure music and can move people to tears. As for the computer making something that sublime we can only guess right now but it does seem to be moving that direction.

Possible surely. Do you think a computer will ever compose music that makes people cry?

While that is a subjective statement I don't suppose I disagree.

Well we certainly aren't ready to replace John Williams but do you think a computer will ever compose popular music?

What do you as a human think of this piece and indeed of the idea of computers producing original music?

I'm afraid that what the primary concern of jurisprudence should be is also subjective but yes for me it is utility and especially preventing harm. I feel that the law should protect the people and that if it does not then it is a poor law.

I did ask if serving justice was our goal. From my perspective justice, if that can even be attained, is of secondary importance to promoting public safety.

Right and wrong, justice and vengeance, legal and unlawful these are all subjective to the society, or sometimes even the individual. Harm and wellbeing are by and large objective. We can argue about what the most just punishment is but the thing that prevents the most harm is to remove murderers and those that conspire to murder from general society. 

When I asked what our goal was in this situation you left that up to me. As I said the only sensible goal would be to minimize future murders. I prescribed nearly identical punishments for.both individuals along with social reform regarding devorce. It doesn't so much matter why the crime was committed only how dangerous the defendants are likely to be in the future. Assessing their probable motives is just one way of determining this risk factor. If the goal were upholding the laws of some nation or other you had ample opportunity to say so, in fact I asked you clearly.

Damn your right.