Fascinating stuff!

Part 1:



Part 2:

Honestly, this is not a very good video at all!


Atheists use to have this point of view. How in the world did these guys, who claim to be creationists, come to this conclusion?

I would critisize this video but it's too much to critisize. I had more fun reading atheists talk about this, they had better imagination. I'm sorry for being so rude but this was made by a highschool graduate.

If anyone is interested in these kinds of ideas, please read some books about metaphysics. Get your 2+2 strait before getting into the science of metaphysics, unless you want to make a fool of yourself like these guys did.

Alex, can you post the reference for this video. I'm just curious who the funny boy is.

First of all, there is nothing atheist in that video.

Second, you say "I would critisize this video but it's too much to critisize. I had more fun reading atheists talk about this, they had better imagination."

Please, take your time and criticize. And then I will try to answer.

So far the only your argument is "this video sux".

As far as video concerned, it is the fact that everything we perceive gets transmitted to our brain through electrical signals. I knew that since taking basic biology class in 6th grade.

Now, the point of video that universe is within us rather existing externally is subjective is not proven yet but the concept is interesting.

When we talk about metaphysics the majority of it is quite subjective and most of such stuff is speculation without ability to provide proof until (and if) sometime in future.

"This video sux" is a very good critisizm based on the evidence and/or premices given, and after, the logic followed throughout the video. lol It does not deserve a better answer.

But from you I will ask this - what is the primary question that needs to be asked in this situation? and/or what is the biggest problem with this view?

I'm saying this because if a person can not ask the right question, then he very far from finding the answer.


later,

Andrey

HAHA, I asked you a specific request, which was
"Please, take your time and criticize. And then I will try to answer"

Your reply:

"This video sux" is a very good critisizm based on the evidence and/or premices given, and after, the logic followed throughout the video"

What evidence ? What premises ? What logic ? Can you be more specific ? So far you've provided none. Therefore, I cannot take any of your arguments (if there are any) seriously. Please don't waste my time with this nonsense.


Andruha wrote:

But from you I will ask this - what is the primary question that needs to be asked in this situation? and/or what is the biggest problem with this view?

I'm saying this because if a person can not ask the right question, then he very far from finding the answer.

later,

Andrey

There is no question whatsoever. The point of this video is to explore one possible view on reality and existence in material universe. The video does have a point although it is almost impossible to prove as of today.

The point is - given evidence of how our senses and perceptions work, it is possible to simulate whatever we see and deliver such simulations to our brain through electrical signals but question remains - who is the ultimate perceiver - mind, God, supreme being, soul, or whatever. Everything we see, hear, touch, smell, taste - can be simulated without requirement of external environment such as universe to exist outside of perceiver. Therefore, it is possible for what we call outside world or material universe to exist inside of us rather a separate entity.

The reason to post such video on this website is to give viewers insight on a) how our brain really works b) provide them with insight on one possible way of how perception and observation in this world works, and who or what stands behind all of observation.

Ok, I’ll do a little more criticizing of this video.

Let’s look at the logic in this video:

-Science is fact(necessity) (they are making this the premise right from the start)
-Science proves (necessity) that our brain perceives the world though our senses
-Our senses necessarily see the real world and the brain.
-Therefore, necessarily it is not the brain that sees the images but the “mind” (good statement!)
-Therefore, it is possible for the brain to receive signals from a computer and transmit it to the mind [and it is possible that we are in a comma like state receiving signals from a computer].

(This is where one has to be careful. I would ask these guys a question: Based on what fact/necessity can a person be in a comma like state?????? How is it that we are jumping from necessity to possibility and from one reference frame to another? These are some major logical fallacies. Seems like non of these guys had any training in epistemology and/or logic which would teach them the proper use of reference frames and necessities)

I’m very confused here. Is this a premise or a conclusion [statement in brackets]? They don’t say, but it seems that they are trying to slide it as if it is a logical conclusion. They are trying to give it some merit by equivocating fact (so called scientific observations) with fiction (comma state that would make the real world unobservable) which is a logical fallacy. Further, if this is a premise what was the point of the whole scientific fact (necessity) section prior to this statement? If that is the case, It would be irrelevant and not a necessity; after all, one would be incapable of measuring anything tangible – he is in a dream. Nothing that he thinks he is measuring is real – what ever that means.

The logic and premises don’t get any better as the video progresses.

I just don’t have anymore time to keep writing any further. If some one else wants to, go right ahead.

Hint: one can not say science is a fact in this logical equation otherwise he would have to make the proper transition from one reference frame (our real world) to the other frame (comma state). No such thing is done. The other option is to get rid of that whole section if he wants to get any where. Even then (if he claims that that’s his premise), he would have hard time persuading anyone because he would end up talking and proving everything merely to himself because there is nothing else that will exist except him. Then what is the point of this conversation? (I’m making this general statement because I had to say where I would go with my argumentation if one would say that the video is making the statement [in the brackets] as a premise.)


Later,

Andrey

p.s. Philosophically speaking, this video is very "illogical" and "unsound." They try to use inductive argumentation and fail horribly.

-Science is fact(necessity) (they are making this the premise right from the start)
-Science proves (necessity) that our brain perceives the world though our senses
-Our senses necessarily see the real world and the brain.
-Therefore, necessarily it is not the brain that sees the images but the “mind” (good statement!)

First, you say that video sucks then you say - good statement. That's the whole point of video - to distinguish between mind and matter, to let us see that there is someone higher behind all perceptions.

If the point of video was to present 100% proof or something of that nature - then yeah, it would suck. But the point of video is to explore possibility rather prove something.

-Therefore, it is possible for the brain to receive signals from a computer and transmit it to the mind [and it is possible that we are in a comma like state receiving signals from a computer].

(This is where one has to be careful. I would ask these guys a question: Based on what fact/necessity can a person be in a comma like state?????? How is it that we are jumping from necessity to possibility and from one reference frame to another? These are some major logical fallacies. Seems like non of these guys had any training in epistemology and/or logic which would teach them the proper use of reference frames and necessities)

They do not say that we are humans in comma like state receiving computer signals to our brain simulating this reality for us. They say that it is possible for some being to experience all these through simulated signals.

I don't think the point of that video was to prove something like metaphysical stuff which is simply impossible to do using physical world measures.

The point of video was to give food for thought. And by fact of science they meant that everything we perceive is being transferred through electrical signals to our so called brain (which really maybe a set of electrical signals too).

I’m very confused here. Is this a premise or a conclusion [statement in brackets]? They don’t say, but it seems that they are trying to slide it as if it is a logical conclusion. They are trying to give it some merit by equivocating fact (so called scientific observations) with fiction (comma state that would make the real world unobservable) which is a logical fallacy. Further, if this is a premise what was the point of the whole scientific fact (necessity) section prior to this statement? If that is the case, It would be irrelevant and not a necessity; after all, one would be incapable of measuring anything tangible – he is in a dream. Nothing that he thinks he is measuring is real – what ever that means.

I don't think this video was made by scientists. It was more like creationists using science to explain possible scenario of how reality works.

The logic and premises don’t get any better as the video progresses.

I just don’t have anymore time to keep writing any further. If some one else wants to, go right ahead.

Hint: one can not say science is a fact in this logical equation otherwise he would have to make the proper transition from one reference frame (our real world) to the other frame (comma state). No such thing is done. The other option is to get rid of that whole section if he wants to get any where. Even then (if he claims that that’s his premise), he would have hard time persuading anyone because he would end up talking and proving everything merely to himself because there is nothing else that will exist except him. Then what is the point of this conversation? (I’m making this general statement because I had to say where I would go with my argumentation if one would say that the video is making the statement [in the brackets] as a premise.)

Again, this video does not run for any scientific nominations. All it does - gives one possible perspective on how reality works and what is "real" universe - matter or set of simulations being fed to our mind ?

The thing is - it is impossible to prove or disprove this point, since every argument we find against simulation type reality could be simulated too. The question remains - who stands behind all this ? God ? Soul ? Or some advanced civilization ? It is impossible to prove any of this.


p.s. Philosophically speaking, this video is very "illogical" and "unsound." They try to use inductive argumentation and fail horribly.

Your point is not only limited to this video but to all religions and most of metaphysical stuff