<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: tired</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/20/tired/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/20/tired/</link>
	<description>Two prophets, living together.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:52:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: fenchurch</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/20/tired/#comment-175358</link>
		<dc:creator>fenchurch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 19:57:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=550#comment-175358</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t waste your time arguing with a solipsist!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t waste your time arguing with a solipsist!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/20/tired/#comment-167076</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:23:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=550#comment-167076</guid>
		<description>I mean, that belief is thinkable and metaphysically possible, but if you really are a &#039;brain in a vat&#039;, what is &#039;reality&#039; - the vat or the simulation being run on the brain?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I mean, that belief is thinkable and metaphysically possible, but if you really are a &#8216;brain in a vat&#8217;, what is &#8216;reality&#8217; &#8211; the vat or the simulation being run on the brain?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/20/tired/#comment-167075</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:14:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=550#comment-167075</guid>
		<description>Mateo, you should really review the cartoons where Moses shows up.

How can you &#039;know&#039; anything about the world out there if you believe that the only reality is your conscience?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mateo, you should really review the cartoons where Moses shows up.</p>
<p>How can you &#8216;know&#8217; anything about the world out there if you believe that the only reality is your conscience?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: griff</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/20/tired/#comment-152840</link>
		<dc:creator>griff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=550#comment-152840</guid>
		<description>mateo, any past is not possible, only the past that actually occurred is possible, because it is the one that did occur.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>mateo, any past is not possible, only the past that actually occurred is possible, because it is the one that did occur.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mateo-argentino</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/20/tired/#comment-149970</link>
		<dc:creator>mateo-argentino</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:36:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=550#comment-149970</guid>
		<description>Uncle roger, if I lost, I&#039;d say that, just as every FUTURE is possible, any PAST is possible...including many in which we didn&#039;t actually did the bet (because if any future is possible then this instant is future to infinite instants which have infinite futures...this being one of them), or even some in which te bet was done backwards! Know that I told you this, you could argue the same, so the bet is pointless!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Uncle roger, if I lost, I&#8217;d say that, just as every FUTURE is possible, any PAST is possible&#8230;including many in which we didn&#8217;t actually did the bet (because if any future is possible then this instant is future to infinite instants which have infinite futures&#8230;this being one of them), or even some in which te bet was done backwards! Know that I told you this, you could argue the same, so the bet is pointless!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Uncle Roger</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/20/tired/#comment-147611</link>
		<dc:creator>Uncle Roger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 22:59:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=550#comment-147611</guid>
		<description>Mateo, me thinks you should cut down on the frequency that you watch the Matrix while stoned...  

Sure, it is possible we&#039;re all lying in pods somewhere generating electricity by existing in a virtual world, but short of watching carefully for anomalies, we&#039;d really have no way of knowing.  

So, we have to trust someone at the bare minimum and that someone is ourselves.  For the most part, (assuming I&#039;m not drunk or overly tired,) I trust what I see, hear, smell, taste, and feel.  I also have to trust my own cognitive abilities or else I&#039;d just be sitting in the corner biting my nails.  Part of that is trusting my experience.  Ever had a kid drop his spoon on the floor and you pick it up and they do it again? And again? and again?  That kid is simply testing gravity.  &quot;Hmm... I let go and it fell.  Will that happen again?  What about this time?  What if I don&#039;t watch?&quot;  We do that too.  &quot;Hmmm...  I put my cursor over the XKCD comic and an extra little joke popped up.  What about on this one?&quot;  

Beyond the trust in myself, I trust those whom experience has shown to be trustworthy.  If my brother-in-law says that some actor won an oscar for some movie in some year, I believe it because he has demonstrated his amazing knowledge of film on many occasions.  If my wife says something about education, I believe it because she is an incredible teacher and has dedicated her life to the study and practice of education.  If I read something on Wikipedia, I mostly accept it, but stay aware that it may not necessarily be correct -- how much I rely on it depends on how accurate I need my info to be.  If my brother says something, I know not to pay attention to it because he has shown himself to be a complete and utter moron repeatedly.  (Speaking of which, there are things which offer clues about people -- being a believer generally indicates an inability (or disinterest) to think and thus significantly reduces credibility.)

As for &quot;everything is possible&quot;, that is true -- the laws of physics could suddenly disappear, Dick Cheney could suddenly become human, and unicorns could suddenly appear before me.  I&#039;m not betting on any of those happening within my lifetime (except, perhaps, the last one -- I do have kids.)  But if you really believe that, I&#039;ll bet you 100 million dollars to your 100 dollars that gravity will continue as it has for at least the next year.  If, within a year&#039;s time, gravity ceases to exist where I am, I&#039;ll pay you 100mil.  If it doesn&#039;t, you pay me a mere $100.  Small price to pay to show your faith in your outlook, eh?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mateo, me thinks you should cut down on the frequency that you watch the Matrix while stoned&#8230;  </p>
<p>Sure, it is possible we&#8217;re all lying in pods somewhere generating electricity by existing in a virtual world, but short of watching carefully for anomalies, we&#8217;d really have no way of knowing.  </p>
<p>So, we have to trust someone at the bare minimum and that someone is ourselves.  For the most part, (assuming I&#8217;m not drunk or overly tired,) I trust what I see, hear, smell, taste, and feel.  I also have to trust my own cognitive abilities or else I&#8217;d just be sitting in the corner biting my nails.  Part of that is trusting my experience.  Ever had a kid drop his spoon on the floor and you pick it up and they do it again? And again? and again?  That kid is simply testing gravity.  &#8220;Hmm&#8230; I let go and it fell.  Will that happen again?  What about this time?  What if I don&#8217;t watch?&#8221;  We do that too.  &#8220;Hmmm&#8230;  I put my cursor over the XKCD comic and an extra little joke popped up.  What about on this one?&#8221;  </p>
<p>Beyond the trust in myself, I trust those whom experience has shown to be trustworthy.  If my brother-in-law says that some actor won an oscar for some movie in some year, I believe it because he has demonstrated his amazing knowledge of film on many occasions.  If my wife says something about education, I believe it because she is an incredible teacher and has dedicated her life to the study and practice of education.  If I read something on Wikipedia, I mostly accept it, but stay aware that it may not necessarily be correct &#8212; how much I rely on it depends on how accurate I need my info to be.  If my brother says something, I know not to pay attention to it because he has shown himself to be a complete and utter moron repeatedly.  (Speaking of which, there are things which offer clues about people &#8212; being a believer generally indicates an inability (or disinterest) to think and thus significantly reduces credibility.)</p>
<p>As for &#8220;everything is possible&#8221;, that is true &#8212; the laws of physics could suddenly disappear, Dick Cheney could suddenly become human, and unicorns could suddenly appear before me.  I&#8217;m not betting on any of those happening within my lifetime (except, perhaps, the last one &#8212; I do have kids.)  But if you really believe that, I&#8217;ll bet you 100 million dollars to your 100 dollars that gravity will continue as it has for at least the next year.  If, within a year&#8217;s time, gravity ceases to exist where I am, I&#8217;ll pay you 100mil.  If it doesn&#8217;t, you pay me a mere $100.  Small price to pay to show your faith in your outlook, eh?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HowardRoark</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/20/tired/#comment-147564</link>
		<dc:creator>HowardRoark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 08:09:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=550#comment-147564</guid>
		<description>Can somebody define &quot;God&quot; for me? Only then can words like &quot;Atheist&quot; and &quot;Agnostic&quot; have any meaning at all. The problem is these words were invented by the so-called &quot;Theists&quot; to define those who don&#039;t agree with them and those who question them. The most diversionary word ever used is &quot;Faith&quot; - to divert all attention from an honest inquiry of &quot;Religion&quot;.

Btw, I define &quot;God&quot; as a synonym of &quot;Nature&quot; - nothing more, nothing less. So believing in &quot;God&quot; for me is simply a scientific quest to discover the truths of nature - how planets and stars work, how earthquakes and  tsunamis occur, how a baby can breathe in liquid until a few seconds before it&#039;s born, etc,  

I would have more respect for &quot;Religion&quot; if it was a open-minded philosophical inquiry into what&#039;s not yet scientifically known about nature - but is there such a &quot;Religion&quot;? Ah - that&#039;s what we can &quot;Science&quot;.

So, as far as I&#039;m concerned, &quot;Science&quot; is religion, &quot;Nature&quot; God, &quot;Hypothesis&quot; &quot;Prayer&quot;, &quot;Proof&quot; is &quot;Miracle&quot;, &quot;Happiness&quot; is &quot;Heaven&quot; ... and the words &quot;Atheist&quot;, &quot;Agnostic&quot; and &quot;Theist&quot; have no meaning whatsoever.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can somebody define &#8220;God&#8221; for me? Only then can words like &#8220;Atheist&#8221; and &#8220;Agnostic&#8221; have any meaning at all. The problem is these words were invented by the so-called &#8220;Theists&#8221; to define those who don&#8217;t agree with them and those who question them. The most diversionary word ever used is &#8220;Faith&#8221; &#8211; to divert all attention from an honest inquiry of &#8220;Religion&#8221;.</p>
<p>Btw, I define &#8220;God&#8221; as a synonym of &#8220;Nature&#8221; &#8211; nothing more, nothing less. So believing in &#8220;God&#8221; for me is simply a scientific quest to discover the truths of nature &#8211; how planets and stars work, how earthquakes and  tsunamis occur, how a baby can breathe in liquid until a few seconds before it&#8217;s born, etc,  </p>
<p>I would have more respect for &#8220;Religion&#8221; if it was a open-minded philosophical inquiry into what&#8217;s not yet scientifically known about nature &#8211; but is there such a &#8220;Religion&#8221;? Ah &#8211; that&#8217;s what we can &#8220;Science&#8221;.</p>
<p>So, as far as I&#8217;m concerned, &#8220;Science&#8221; is religion, &#8220;Nature&#8221; God, &#8220;Hypothesis&#8221; &#8220;Prayer&#8221;, &#8220;Proof&#8221; is &#8220;Miracle&#8221;, &#8220;Happiness&#8221; is &#8220;Heaven&#8221; &#8230; and the words &#8220;Atheist&#8221;, &#8220;Agnostic&#8221; and &#8220;Theist&#8221; have no meaning whatsoever.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mateo-argentino</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/20/tired/#comment-147023</link>
		<dc:creator>mateo-argentino</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 23:09:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=550#comment-147023</guid>
		<description>I agree. saying &quot;there is no truth&quot; is a paradox. Man, I love pardoxes. And I hate them. But there is a way around it: We transform it in &quot;Absolutely anything is possible&quot;. That is the key of my every-day philosphy (of course, you could say &quot;Then it is possible that not everything is possible...&quot; but come on, not even I am that crazy...)

Anyway, my memory tells my that, since I started to think this way, I&#039;ve lived my life under that philosophy: Everything is possible. Every instant my own exsistence can radically change. Or end.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree. saying &#8220;there is no truth&#8221; is a paradox. Man, I love pardoxes. And I hate them. But there is a way around it: We transform it in &#8220;Absolutely anything is possible&#8221;. That is the key of my every-day philosphy (of course, you could say &#8220;Then it is possible that not everything is possible&#8230;&#8221; but come on, not even I am that crazy&#8230;)</p>
<p>Anyway, my memory tells my that, since I started to think this way, I&#8217;ve lived my life under that philosophy: Everything is possible. Every instant my own exsistence can radically change. Or end.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daoloth</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/20/tired/#comment-146984</link>
		<dc:creator>Daoloth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 19:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=550#comment-146984</guid>
		<description>Mateo- Here is the problem. All your arguments about unreliabilty, say of memory, themselves rely on memory. Likewise the arguments about the unreliability of perception rely on perception. Thus the argument itself is unreliable. Its a bit like saying &quot;There no such thing as truth&quot;. Is THAT statement true? It simply can&#039;t be. It would true if and only if it is false.
Likewise saying we can NEVER rely on the senses- why not? &quot;My senses tell me so&quot; is viciously circular. 
All we ever have in science is inference to the best explanation with all statements provisional. There is not only no secure root from the philosophical armchair to the outside world, there is not even a secure root for self-understanding that way. Which is why (pace Ophelia) philosophy tends to leave me unsatisfied.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mateo- Here is the problem. All your arguments about unreliabilty, say of memory, themselves rely on memory. Likewise the arguments about the unreliability of perception rely on perception. Thus the argument itself is unreliable. Its a bit like saying &#8220;There no such thing as truth&#8221;. Is THAT statement true? It simply can&#8217;t be. It would true if and only if it is false.<br />
Likewise saying we can NEVER rely on the senses- why not? &#8220;My senses tell me so&#8221; is viciously circular.<br />
All we ever have in science is inference to the best explanation with all statements provisional. There is not only no secure root from the philosophical armchair to the outside world, there is not even a secure root for self-understanding that way. Which is why (pace Ophelia) philosophy tends to leave me unsatisfied.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mateo-argentino</title>
		<link>http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/05/20/tired/#comment-146969</link>
		<dc:creator>mateo-argentino</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 14:45:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.jesusandmo.net/?p=550#comment-146969</guid>
		<description>this is getting interesting!
----------------
First of all Pinto, as I already said I don&#039;t really know anything about Descartes...I never read anything he wrote or anything about him.
Second, I don&#039;t believe that you&#039;re figments of my imagination, I believe you COULD be...i wouldn&#039;t know.
---------------
Daoloth. I agree. My causality argument is completely useless. I don&#039;t believe in it. BUT i believe that someone how believes in causality and logic could believe in it and therefor stop believing in reality. I know is a bit confusing because i didn&#039;t explain it very good (My english is limeted...).

The &quot;every chain of events is logical&quot; argument is used to probe that thruth is completely unreachable...but I DON&#039;T believe it, because I don&#039;t believe in anything.

Finally, my conclusion doesn&#039;t refute my prmises: It looks that way because I first did my &quot;every chain...&quot; thing and then I said &quot;I don&#039; believe in anything&quot;, but those aren&#039;t connected (I know it&#039;s really confusing, if I spoke better english, it&#039;d be easier to explain!) ...the conclusion was &quot;every instant can be followed by any other possible instant&quot;, as all chain of events are logic...We can imagine a logic chain of events in which an instant after this one we all become monkeys, and we can also imagine a chain were the instant BEFORE this one, we were all monkeys...the fact that not even the premises for that conclusion can be trusted come from the simple fact, completelly unrelated, that NOTHING can be trusted.
--------------------
Drinky: I answered you the las because I had some trouble understanding your comment...my bad. Altough it&#039;s true I may have been using some terms wrongly, I think you misunderstood some of my comments too.

The first and most important thing I feel I need to say is: It doesn&#039;t matter that senses back each other up. They could still be misleading you.

I completely agree with you when you say &quot;Just because you can imagine or wish it, does not make it so&quot;...Its why I always tell ebery religious person I know.

Now, I may have misunderstood you, but I think you fell right in my trap: When you said &quot;because it has never happened&quot; you are saying &quot;No one recalls it happening&quot;...But that isn&#039;t necessarly true, because THIS VERY INSTANT, with yours and every other person&#039;s thoughts included are not necessarily truth. Memory is as unrelaibale as senses!!! I Said &quot;maybe a second ago we were all monkeys&quot;, if you say &quot;I don&#039;t remember being a monkey&quot;...I&#039;d just say &quot;that&#039;s because what changed your body also changed your memory&quot;...It sounds crazy and you&#039;re probably thinking I am completely insane...but you&#039;ll find there is no way to refute my &quot;nothing can be known&quot; theory...because it says nothing!!! The more a theory says, the easier it is to refute it...mine says nothing can be known for sure. So if you find a way to refute it I&#039;ll just say &quot;you can&#039;t know that for sure!&quot;

Religious faith is a sad human condition, its horrible to see people stupidized by it...but all in all, science is just the most beautiful of all religions...because it&#039;s the one that fits with THIS instant...we will never know if science is right, if there was a big bang or even if there was a year 1999. We just know right know, science is what explain what we sense. But it could all be false

I stand by the facts: Only my instant existence is known for sure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this is getting interesting!<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-<br />
First of all Pinto, as I already said I don&#8217;t really know anything about Descartes&#8230;I never read anything he wrote or anything about him.<br />
Second, I don&#8217;t believe that you&#8217;re figments of my imagination, I believe you COULD be&#8230;i wouldn&#8217;t know.<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;<br />
Daoloth. I agree. My causality argument is completely useless. I don&#8217;t believe in it. BUT i believe that someone how believes in causality and logic could believe in it and therefor stop believing in reality. I know is a bit confusing because i didn&#8217;t explain it very good (My english is limeted&#8230;).</p>
<p>The &#8220;every chain of events is logical&#8221; argument is used to probe that thruth is completely unreachable&#8230;but I DON&#8217;T believe it, because I don&#8217;t believe in anything.</p>
<p>Finally, my conclusion doesn&#8217;t refute my prmises: It looks that way because I first did my &#8220;every chain&#8230;&#8221; thing and then I said &#8220;I don&#8217; believe in anything&#8221;, but those aren&#8217;t connected (I know it&#8217;s really confusing, if I spoke better english, it&#8217;d be easier to explain!) &#8230;the conclusion was &#8220;every instant can be followed by any other possible instant&#8221;, as all chain of events are logic&#8230;We can imagine a logic chain of events in which an instant after this one we all become monkeys, and we can also imagine a chain were the instant BEFORE this one, we were all monkeys&#8230;the fact that not even the premises for that conclusion can be trusted come from the simple fact, completelly unrelated, that NOTHING can be trusted.<br />
&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;<br />
Drinky: I answered you the las because I had some trouble understanding your comment&#8230;my bad. Altough it&#8217;s true I may have been using some terms wrongly, I think you misunderstood some of my comments too.</p>
<p>The first and most important thing I feel I need to say is: It doesn&#8217;t matter that senses back each other up. They could still be misleading you.</p>
<p>I completely agree with you when you say &#8220;Just because you can imagine or wish it, does not make it so&#8221;&#8230;Its why I always tell ebery religious person I know.</p>
<p>Now, I may have misunderstood you, but I think you fell right in my trap: When you said &#8220;because it has never happened&#8221; you are saying &#8220;No one recalls it happening&#8221;&#8230;But that isn&#8217;t necessarly true, because THIS VERY INSTANT, with yours and every other person&#8217;s thoughts included are not necessarily truth. Memory is as unrelaibale as senses!!! I Said &#8220;maybe a second ago we were all monkeys&#8221;, if you say &#8220;I don&#8217;t remember being a monkey&#8221;&#8230;I&#8217;d just say &#8220;that&#8217;s because what changed your body also changed your memory&#8221;&#8230;It sounds crazy and you&#8217;re probably thinking I am completely insane&#8230;but you&#8217;ll find there is no way to refute my &#8220;nothing can be known&#8221; theory&#8230;because it says nothing!!! The more a theory says, the easier it is to refute it&#8230;mine says nothing can be known for sure. So if you find a way to refute it I&#8217;ll just say &#8220;you can&#8217;t know that for sure!&#8221;</p>
<p>Religious faith is a sad human condition, its horrible to see people stupidized by it&#8230;but all in all, science is just the most beautiful of all religions&#8230;because it&#8217;s the one that fits with THIS instant&#8230;we will never know if science is right, if there was a big bang or even if there was a year 1999. We just know right know, science is what explain what we sense. But it could all be false</p>
<p>I stand by the facts: Only my instant existence is known for sure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!--
Hyper cache file: f97cecd07e5b0565f6eaea55f7ad0fd1
Cache created: 11-02-2012 02:13:11
HCE Version: 0.9.8
Load AVG: 0(5)
-->
