But now turn that into something we can work with. Otherwise I'm left to guess what you think the implications are. — Tzeentch

That is ground we've already covered mon ami!

That's not what's happening. — Tate

Think before you speak! :chin:

Look before you leap! :chin:

But if you already know, how can I make a choice? — Mr. Anderson

Because you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand why you made it. I thought you'd have figured that out by now. — The Oracle

It means change is ahead no matter what we do. Civilization emerged during a relatively serene period. It's first big test will be whatever happens in the next few centuries. — Tate

The glaciation of the globe, if it occurs, will surely counteract the global warming and if we're lucky and smart enough we may even be able to control the climate by regulating CO₂ emissions. From unmanageable global warming to fine-tuning climate, a plot twist worthy of a bestseller, oui monsieur? I'm not averse to taking some (calculated) risks, mon ami! We can, if we play our cards right, make a good friend of a deadly foe.

reincarnation — TiredThinker

Reincarnation isn't a falsifiable hypothesis with respect to recollection of past lives due to the fact that it's compatible with both memories of past lives (good recall) and also no memories of past lives (poor/defective recall).

Reincarnation is pseudoscientific woo woo!

An acorn, if nurtured, will grow into a oak tree [yes potential].

A stone, no matter what you do, will remain a stone [no potential].

That's why we treat acorns and stones differently.

It's quite simple actually. The OP's question answers itself for it indicates that there's a real possibility that the external world is mind-generated/mind-sustained/simulated (re Cartesian skepticism and the famous brain-in-a-vat gedanken experiment). In other words we don't/can't know whether an external world exists or not.

We could however attempt to deduce/verify the presence of telltale signs of mental objects as opposed to non-mind-dependent entities. Either mental constructs are distinguishable from the non-mental or not. If the former, we have to work them out and conduct relevant tests. If the latter, the question becomes meaningless - if we can't tell the difference between x and y, x = y for all intents and purposes, oui?

I don't want evidence, I want proof, of postmortem persistence of my/our consciousness! — Agent Smith

Is Agent Smith talking outta his/her hat or is s/he onto something really important?

what is this earthspaceship theory? — Merkwurdichliebe

Spaceship Earth

The sun is hurtling through space at around 80,000 km/s, dragging along with it the planets, including the earth. The solar system's a self-contained interstellar vessel/craft with its own power source - a fusion reactor, the sun - and there's a reserve fleet of planets we can move to as the sun evolves into a red giant.

Remember the perfect/ideal spaceship (self-sustaining biosphere with a reliable, long-lived power source) is just a scaled down version of a solar system with a one/more planets in the habitable zone and a few backup planets to take into account stellar life history. :snicker:

Bonum (good) analgesizes slavery and/or ecstasizes liberty!

Whatever the truth is, if an ice age coincides with global warming, we'd all havta cry out "perfect timing!" @Wayfarer might wanna comment about how earth is a spaceship [re spaceship earth theory]. Maybe it's part of the plan, oui? A super-advanced environmental control system is what this looks like to me! Just like how we turn up the heat when its winter! :snicker: Woah!

Bonum (good) :zip:

Suppose we do exist prior to birth as a human. What then? Would you not be depriving someone of joy by not letting him/her go to a fun-filled party ? Did Cinderella not cry in sorrow when her stepmom and stepsisters forbade her from attending the prince's ball?

Let's now look at the asymmetry due nonexistence:

Birthing a child is to impose one's will on a child even if it's well-thought-out.

Not birthing a child, on the other hand, isn't an imposition for only the living can be so (mis)treated.

Can you spot the error? Possible persons vs. Nonexistent persons! The T1000 in Terminator 1, had it succeeded in killing Sarah Connor, wouldn't have committed any crime against John Connor, the leader of the resistance, because John hadn't been conceived yet!

Since you haven’t addressed my arguments, no. — schopenhauer1

Let's back up a little to the point where we seem to be on the same page. I would, like you would, do everything in my power to prevent the birth of a child in a lava pit.

My counter-question is will you, isn't it immoral, to stop the birth of a child in heaven?

If the potential for suffering matters (lava pit birth), the potential for happiness does too (heavenly birth). It is only fair that this is so.

Not sure what you're saying. Proof and evidence aren't dissimilar. Proof is maybe most solid in math, but I think in most science it is always a very high bar to achieve. Evidence can still be very strong for something. — TiredThinker

Still a bit hazy about the issue, but I suggest you explore the distinction between proof and evidence; I feel like it'll be worth it.

Verum (truth) liberates!

Pulchrum (beauty) enslaves!

Bonum (good) ____ (fill in the blank).

@Tate

If an ice age is in the offing, the greenhouse effect could be just what the doctor ordered. The two could cancel each other out and we would've averted a global catastrophe. If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the road to heaven could be paved with bad ones! :snicker:

God moves in a mysterious way. — William Cowper

There is a delay from CO2 emission to associated temperature increase. Maybe that's what you were thinking about? — Tate

Aye!

Didn't know that. Reference? — Tate

Apologies, can't seem to find one. However, in my defense, since climatologists claim global warming is a fact, they should be able to confirm/counter my claim; after all science is all about making accurate quantifiable predictions.

Proof vs. Evidence

That would be your argument, not mine. I do believe that there is evidence for past lives based on NDEs and DMT experiences, but this would entail a different argument. — Sam26

Proof vs. Evidence.

That out of the way, I hope that some of us do survive death!

The argument, if you read it, doesn't include the idea of past lives, it concludes that consciousness survives the death of the body. Past lives is a side issue that has some evidence (based on what has happened in many NDEs), but it's has nothing to do with the thrust of my main argument. So, again, you're not following the argument, or you haven't read it closely enough. — Sam26

I mentioned past life memories for a good reason! It's the best evidence for life after death and I've demonstrated that it falls short of the mark.

Address specifically how I've lowered the bar. Don't just make statements without good reasons. Where specifically did the inductive argument fail? Did I not provide enough numbers, variety of NDEs, corroboration, consistency, etc? All your comment does is show that you don't follow the argument. — Sam26

Well, I already pointed out, as clearly as I could, that memories (of past lives) are hopelessly inadequate.

These are not negative feeback loops. — boethius

Why? A rise in CO₂ causes global warming which in turn causes greenification that then causes a fall in CO₂. That's a negative feedback loop alright!

I fear you've dangerously lowered the bar for evidence on such an important issue as life after death.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. — Sagan standard

With global warming

1. The greenification of Antarctica will occur.

2. The northward march of the timber line has been predicted.

Negative feedback loops, oui?

CO₂ levels have increased, not denying that. However, the spike in CO₂ levels has been slower and less than expected for the rate and quantity of CO₂ emissions.

Question: What about consciousness proves, no, suggests, its survival/continuation post death?

The low hanging fruit is memories of past lives. However, we can't rule out false memories, coincidences, and plain ol' lying.

Which you have yet to contradict, so are still defending? Or then some cowardly non-defence but ... also not admitting a contradiction!? — boethius

Fact: CO₂ levels didn't change despite increased emissions since the 1800s.

Hypothesis: Negative feedback loops aka the balance of nature.

What's wrong with the hypothesis? Note Henry's law is a component of autoregulation.

Is not scientific theory, but things that sound clever to libertarians (who are collectively dumb as toast). — boethius

The Wikipedia article on The Balance of Nature says that one scientist declares that it's an "enduring myth." It's considered an obsolete theory.

However, what's the explanation for the long delay in changes to atmospheric CO₂ levels, not to mention the deviation from normal are miniscule. One explanation is there are some negative feedback loops that regulate the concentration of gases in the atmosphere and that's precisely what autoregulation is, oui?

since knowledge is never certain, there cannot be knowledge — 180 Proof

:fire:

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

May the nonexistent god bless your nonexistent soul! :smile:

Exactly. Bostrom's argument is DOA. :up: — 180 Proof

I see.

This just in. A mysterious caller tips philosophers off:
Metaphysics (identity & change) of/in Logic.

Actually, yes, I do think that those who want to be soldiers are often the best cut out for it. But not always. I specifically remember a kid I ate lunch with in high school talking about how he couldn't wait to join the military and kill some {insert pejorative often used against Arabs}. Pretty sickening, but not representative of those who want to be soldiers. — ToothyMaw

Soldiers, to my reckoning, are like pro-choicers: they must kill but not murder! Tough call, many/most fail; sic vita est.

There's no difference between simulator and simulated. A distinction without a difference!

I have solid proof that liquid is a gas! :snicker:

Well, if you've answered my question and you're still arguing for antinatalism, something's wrong. At the very least, I expect you to rethink your treatment of the nonexistence-existence asymmetry. Can you accommodate my objections and make the appropriate changes, please? Muchas gracias in advance.

So math does bring some clarity to the problem of uncertainty and how that uncertainty impacts our decisions. The idea is to maximize our odds of success/gettin' it right as it were given there's a chance factor at play.

Skepticism can be tamed then, even if only in principle. The reason why true blue skeptics recommend epoché isn't because they're ignorant of mathematical probability, but because they know all possibilities under consideration are equiprobable. What sayest thou?

Yes, math to the rescue OR is it help we would've been better without! Sometimes assistance cometh with a tangle of strings attached.

The issue looketh simple, but I fear that's only a mirage. You seem math literate; can you perhaps provide me with a basic framework of how math can rescue us from analysis paralysis aka aporia? Can you? Please, pretty please!

A = Aims (objectives)
B = Blueprint (plan)
C = Carry it out (implement)

A simple and yet powerful algorithm that guarantees success; you can't fail, you simply can't!

:snicker: For me about 30 years too late; hopefully the younglings in here can put this idea to good use!

The force is strong with this one. — Master Yoda

Well, either I didn't get it or Deutsch et al is using the word "simulation" in an unconventional sense. How can a simulation simulate itself? That sounds incoherent unless a few micrograms of LSD come with the pack! :lol: You know what?, some of these ideas suggest that potent psychoactives were involved im their formulation. The conspiracy theorist in me is thinking a CIA covert operation/experiment.