Curious Person | Helping you be powerful in your quest for truth

USA
Joined April 2017
It's coming...
54
66
15
679
59,233
I was impressed by his rhetorical power. It just seemed funny to me because he uses the term "non-sequitur" incorrectly, yet no one seems to notice or point this out. I could hardly resist...
3
4
458
He's right, debating such things is a "ridiculous" challenge. I like challenges.
Replying to @worldviewdesign
Utterly ridiculous. You won’t agree on what “perfect” means - and you have no way to agree on what perfect means. Add to that, we don’t even know what time is!
2
20
1,724
Thanks to feedback and further reflections, updates are coming to this (see my final note): worldviewdesign.substack.com…
1
7
1,338
The Argument from Change: 1. Death of your body marks a change in spatial arrangement of matter. 2. You don't depend on any spatial arrangement of matter (by reason and experience). 3. Therefore, you don't depend on whether your body is dead. 4. If you don't depend on whether your body is dead, then there is life after death. 5. Therefore, there is life after death.
101
12
11
114
10,089
Take heart, your views on mind are more promising:
It turns out my religious beliefs are 7.7% likely to be true! That's enough for me. 😁
1
3
42
1,932
Can you relate to this experience?
🤖 Made with AI
11
49
2,339
A lot of debates come down to this.
🤖 Made with AI
5
2
1
30
1,901
Without minds, brains would never emerge.
43
7
9
161
10,026
Do brains make minds, or do minds make brains? Hypothesis: your brain *represents* and *depends* on prior mental powers.
16
2
2
47
2,336
Could this be explained via selection-effect? Many cases, some go into remission for unknown reasons, some of them coincide with prayer. youtube.com/watch?v=G6Zu0iAh…
4
1
15
3,083
Joshua Rasmussen retweeted
Here I draw on the work of my friends Josh Rasmussen (@worldviewdesign) and Andrew Bailey (@resistancemoney ) to suggest that there may be an in-principle construction problem when it comes to creating artificial minds. 🔗⬇️
2
3
12
787