Paradise matters only if there are conscious beings to perceive the paradise.

[iwanttodie019]

Without any conscious beings there would be no need for any paradise.
So paradise is also completely pointless and unnecessary.
Happiness is like creating new desires(pleasure receptors) when there is no need to.
SO happiness is completely pointless and unnecessary

 

[rosynov2]

Logically I also think paradise doesn't make much sense, however I hear the argument that people don't have the capability , like biologically to conceptualize these things which doesn't dispute the idea of God , just shows you can't prove it. also that the idea of god and miracles doesn't follow logic as it breaks like laws of physics of reality, therefore you cannot apply the same logical and reasoning for paradise.
Also yes without pleasure receptors no need for happiness, but since we have pleasure receptors we need to have happiness.

 

[iwanttodie019]

If given the option between paradise and nonexistenc,would you not choose paradise over non existence even though you rationally conclude there is no difference between the two?That is because you are biased towards the conscious experience but we were 100% logical rational machines,we would choose nonexistence

Logically I also think paradise doesn't make much sense, however I hear the argument that people don't have the capability , like biologically to conceptualize these things which doesn't dispute the idea of God , just shows you can't prove it. also that the idea of god and miracles doesn't follow logic as it breaks like laws of physics of reality, therefore you cannot apply the same logical and reasoning for paradise.
Also yes without pleasure receptors no need for happiness, but since we have pleasure receptors we need to have happiness

 

[rosynov2]

If given the option between paradise and nonexistenc,would you not choose paradise over non existence even though you rationally conclude there is no difference between the two?That is because you are biased towards the conscious experience but we were 100% logical rational machines,we would choose nonexistence

I mean if I was given the option, then it would be rational to pick paradise , because then we are assuming that it exists, and who wouldn't want to live in paradise if it was proved to be real, it would be illogical to not honestly. But if we assume that I have to pick the idea/belief between paradise or nonexistence, I would pick nonexistence if I was thinking purely logically, and I would pick paradise if I was thinking purely spiritually. What I meant was that if you try to use only a logical and rational lense/perspective when trying to prove God's existence it won't be possible due to our biological wiring. However there are different perspectives like spirtual, and creative lense, when thinking of God, which makes it possible to expand your thinking out of realms of physics and rules of reality, like miracles aren't logical or rooted in our physical reality yet many believe it. I don't agree that everyone is 100 percent logical rational machines, theyre are many irrational illogical people who follow mainly emotional drive and not reasoning. So I mean in case of god, people can use different types of lenses spirtual or logical. I personally have no idea if this way of thinking even makes sense, I dont really know what to believe in, but I'm biased coming from religious household, so my belief is that unless I can prove God isn't real , he is real to me just due to my envrionmental upbringing, and due to the what I know of the historical evidence the prophets that have existed I just can't understand how else ancient societies believed all of this and perserved it, otherwise. Does this make sense ,

 

[iwanttodie019]

I mean if I was given the option, then it would be rational to pick paradise , because then we are assuming that it exists, and who wouldn't want to live in paradise if it was proved to be real, it would be illogical to not honestly. But if we assume that I have to pick the idea/belief between paradise or nonexistence, I would pick nonexistence if I was thinking purely logically, and I would pick paradise if I was thinking purely spiritually. What I meant was that if you try to use only a logical and rational lense/perspective when trying to prove God's existence it won't be possible due to our biological wiring. However there are different perspectives like spirtual, and creative lense, when thinking of God, which makes it possible to expand your thinking out of realms of physics and rules of reality, like miracles aren't logical or rooted in our physical reality yet many believe it. I don't agree that everyone is 100 percent logical rational machines, theyre are many irrational illogical people who follow mainly emotional drive and not reasoning. So I mean in case of god, people can use different types of lenses spirtual or logical. I personally have no idea if this way of thinking even makes sense, I dont really know what to believe in, but I'm biased coming from religious household, so my belief is that unless I can prove God isn't real , he is real to me just due to my envrionmental upbringing, and due to the what I know of the historical evidence the prophets that have existed I just refuse to understand how else ancient societies believed all of this and perserved it, otherwise. Does this make sense ,

""WHO wouldn't want to live in paradise if given the option between paradise and nonexistence"
Reply::--

If you were completely rational and logical and was not biased towards the conscious experience,you would realise how futile it is to choose paradise over nonexistence.Read my post above.

So yes a completely rational being would choose nonexistence and not paradise

P.S.Here by paradise,i do not mean religious paradise but an existence of only happiness and 0 suffering.SUch paradise can be engineered theoretically with the aid of nanotechnology/genetic engineering,but such paradise would also be pointless.It would only matter if there are any conscious beings to perceive the paradise

 

[rosynov2]

Ok I get what your saying , it would be pointless , I guess a rational person would choose nonexistence because they're aware theres no point, and their thinking is purely in logic and not emotion, which I dont think is even human to do, if you remove all emotional thinking that is not human, that is a machine, we are not machines, because unlike machines we have emotions. I guess im not a rational person because I would prefer to be experiencing paradise, i dont care whether theyres a point or not, because I would ask (Whoever created this theoretical paradise) questions about Paradise and and all its ethics , like Wouldnt it be pointless and I would see what they would say, and then make my judgement after that. Bc end of day we are assuming in this case theres a Creator of this(Through technology this case), and theres a paradise(Id try to ask about rules of this thereotical place can I choose to die anytime or whatever, is theres a point to being here), and here we assume were given option to choose to cease to exist or live a pointless eternal life. So I mean after its all layed out to me, Ill logically decide after that. Of course we are thinking theretolically because practically the genetic engineering tech still has to follow laws of physics so eternal life cannot be possible in that case, according to our biology reality we all have die and turn to atoms, simply, so you would have break those laws. And I assumed its religious paradise because whats the point of this conversation, you think theres a chance we would experience a theretocial paradise over a religion one? Why
and everyone is biased. its impossible not to be. its our human nature.

 

[iwanttodie019]

Ok I get what your saying , it would be pointless , I guess a rational person would choose nonexistence because they're aware theres no point, and their thinking is purely in logic and not emotion, which I dont think is even human to do, if you remove all emotional thinking that is not human, that is a machine, we are not machines, because unlike machines we have emotions. I guess im not a rational person because I would prefer to be experiencing paradise, i dont care whether theyres a point or not, because I would ask (Whoever created this theoretical paradise) questions about Paradise and and all its ethics , like Wouldnt it be pointless and I would see what they would say, and then make my judgement after that. Bc end of day we are assuming in this case theres a Creator of this(Through technology this case), and theres a paradise(Id try to ask about rules of this thereotical place can I choose to die anytime or whatever, is theres a point to being here), and here we assume were given option to choose to cease to exist or live a pointless eternal life. So I mean after its all layed out to me, Ill logically decide after that. Of course we are thinking theretolically because practically the genetic engineering tech still has to follow laws of physics so eternal life cannot be possible in that case, according to our biology reality we all have die and turn to atoms, simply, so you would have break those laws. And I assumed its religious paradise because whats the point of this conversation, you think theres a chance we would experience a theretocial paradise over a religion one? Why
and everyone is biased. its impossible not to be. its our human nature.

We are biased towards the conscious experience because of evolution.(if we weren't we would have gone extinct )
But let's say you could create an AI which has no bias towards the conscious experience,it could in theory engineer a COMPLETE PERSONAL PARADISE FOR ITSELF but instead it would choose to turn itself off because it would realise the futility of paradise

 

[rosynov2]

Yes you are right we are biased. Ai are not humans though right, they not have emotions they can never be engineered to have thoughts like humans it is all aritical by design. &religions have their own sense of paradise, and im sure the theretoical enegineered paradises will not all be the same. i think humans are innately curious like animals, most would pick paradise when it goes down to it, maybe we will regret it and say, there is no point. Any that wouldn't accept, i believe are going against their human nature, they are outliers, supressing natural emotions,etc, and that itself could be also apart human nature so idk. end of day i dont think people believe their will be a simulated artifical paradise awaiting us with the option of cease existence or live eternally , so if the point of this convo was simply to ask about human nature I would just answer that majority of us will pick heaven soley due to our biological wiring that enables us to be not purely logic machines, but something more complex that is not pure logic but a mix and varying things, ok ?

 

[iwanttodie019]

Yes you are right we are biased. Ai are not humans though right, they not have emotions they can never be engineered to have thoughts like humans it is all aritical by design. &religions have their own sense of paradise, and im sure the theretoical enegineered paradises will not all be the same. i think humans are innately curious like animals, most would pick paradise when it goes down to it, maybe we will regret it and say, there is no point. Any that wouldn't accept, i believe are going against their human nature, they are outliers, supressing natural emotions,etc, and that itself could be also apart human nature so idk. end of day i dont think people believe their will be a simulated artifical paradise awaiting us with the option of cease existence or live eternally , so if the point of this convo was simply to ask about human nature I would just answer that majority of us will pick heaven soley due to our biological wiring that enables us to be not purely logic machines, but something more complex that is not pure logic but a mix and varying things, ok ?

Not majority but every human will choose paradise over nonexistence because we are hardwired by evolution to be biased towards the conscious experience

 

[rosynov2]

Ok and what does this point prove? that humans will all pick paradise end of day and theres no such thing as 100 percent logical rational human being because thats not human thats machine? Ok. All i was saying was you keep looking at paradise as logical perspective, Humans should look at varying perspectives not purely logic, because that is narrow minded , imo,