Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cerapa]

Yes, analysis does have its place, but for instance, say you have the list 0, 2, 3, 4, 5...9. You look at maybe the first three numbers, see that the sequence ends in 9, and correctly intuit that it might be the first 9 digits. Then your brain quickly and very accurately picks out any discrepancies, like 426 or 4H6, because our vision system is more sophisticated than a chaotic mess of pixels. Is the conclusion that the sequence is 0 through 9 then irrational just because there's some minute chance that the 0 character was actually O?

Hilariously you forgot to put a 1 on the sequence so your intuition(and mine, before I noticed it) was false.

[EveryZig]

I think intuition has significant value, but at the same time is not in itself a method of producing knowledge. To actually count something as knowledge you will want to verify it with more reliable testing, as intuition is fast and cheap but demonstrably unreliable in many areas. The use of intuition is in estimations that help you prioritize what you test as knowledge, not in replacing those tests altogether.

[Eagleon]

Hilariously you forgot to put a 1 on the sequence so your intuition(and mine, before I noticed it) was false.

Jsajhaha. Good catch. I had edited it to start from 0 to avoid calling 10 a digit.

I think intuition has significant value, but at the same time is not in itself a method of producing knowledge. To actually count something as knowledge you will want to verify it with more reliable testing, as intuition is fast and cheap but demonstrably unreliable in many areas. The use of intuition is in estimations that help you prioritize what you test as knowledge, not in replacing those tests altogether.

Fundamentally, there are simple tests we perform on the information we receive all the time. Whether or not those tests are flawed is always in question. To a lesser extent with science, we may not realize that a test we use produces inaccurate results because of unknown factors - a water sample being contaminated by airborne bacteria, a particle-collider with a virus from one of the technician's emails, an unexpected harmonic building in the road traffic of a bridge, or simply flawed methodology. We can learn from our mistakes and adjust, try to test repeatedly to eliminate random chance, but we'll never know if our compensation is introducing error as well.

So if we can't rely on empirical knowledge in general, what use is excluding intuition? I think the worst casualty of that would be metaphor, which casual conversation is so full of that we rarely bother to notice.

[KaelGotDwarves]

That's why I think more people should study epistemology. To make things simple, it's the study of 'how do you know the things you know'. A lot of things we learn from direct experience, or our superiors, or by applying the scientific method.

It's interesting to note that ontological objectivists often find themselves at odds with other ontological objectivists. When you believe that there is only one objective truth, you often believe that your paradigm is the one true view of reality. This is why scientists and religious fundamentalists have ontological objectivism in common, even though they will kill each other over epistemological differences.

[Shadowlord]

*randomly barges into the thread*

So how accurate is this? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Objectivism

[KaelGotDwarves]

It is written and/or edited from the view of an objectivist(s)  who believe that Rand is vastly misunderstood-Which is true from many angles. Regardless of that bias, it contains a lot of useful and good information about objectivist perspective and explains Randian philosophy in a way that does not necessitate reading through her subjectively dreadful fiction writing.

I am actually impressed to see that they started with the ontological and epistemological implications of Objectivism. That is by far more important than Randian politics and economics, although everyone seems to forget that.

[cerapa]

That is far lighter than most of the stuff I've heard about objectivism. I agree with the metaphysical stuff(cept conceptualism) and the logic stuff, but morality still goes downhill rather quickly.

I cant really put my finger on what it is exactly. Because as far as I'm concerned, it doesnt say anything besides moral relativism(which I ascribe to). It states that good is what we think is good and bad is what we think is bad. But then goes onto arbitrarily state that force, fraud and coercion are objectively bad regardless of if the particular entity believes them to be bad, nor that they will be a natural result of human interaction in the world we live in(especially in economics). This is best demonstrated by the statement that: "Voluntary economic activity conducted by fully informed, consenting individuals, should not be restricted in any way." which appears to ignore the fact that people are not omniscient and as such never fully informed.

[Zrk2]

Was extremely impressed with how well written and unhateful it was. She did have many good ideas, but many people get tied up in her politics.

[Shadowlord]

Then I'll give my thoughts on it (though not all at once, since it would probably be a ridiculously huge post).

In the metaphysics section:

2. Every thing that exists has a specific nature or identity ('A is A' or 'a thing is what it is'). A thing must be something, otherwise it is nothing.

I would disagree with this. Things do not have specific natures or identities innately. They may be composed of molecules composed of atoms composed of particles composed of quarks, unless those things aren't matter or whatever, in which case they're made of something else (like photons, neutrinos, etc), and their 'natures' or 'identities' are only labels given to them by observers (us), and they can have more than one 'nature' or 'identity'. (Not to mention that I could point out the empty space between atoms, or between electrons and protons, or the vacuum, when it doesn't contain virtual particles or dust or the like, all of which have been named, have natures, and identities, but are nothing)

3. You exist, and you exist possessing consciousness, which is the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

I have no convincing proof that I, and every other human, are not an artificial intelligence in a simulation simulating a human mind, incapable of perceiving anything but the simulation. Furthermore, most animals seem to be so predictable that it almost seems unlikely that their "minds" aren't programs or AIs of some sort. If that is the case, then what we are perceiving is not reality at all, but a convincing (to us) simulated reality, and we are not perceiving anything that exists in the real world, meaning that we do not possess 'consciousness' by that definition.


In fact, even if we are real, we are not perceiving anything in the real world. Those colors you see? Not what is actually there in the real world. Things reflect various wavelengths, but you only have three different kinds of cone cells which each absorb a range of wavelengths and compare the strengths of the signals they get and combine their signals to come up with a color. Which is how you get purple when you see both blue and red light, when there is no such actual color at all (blue and red are on the opposite end of the color spectrum and do not overlap at all). (It is generally used in place of violet as RGB color lights cannot generate violet light)

Anything you perceive is going through processing prior to you becoming aware of it. You don't smell a chemical signature, you perceive the smell of cinnamon, or chicken, or a wet dog, etc. You perceive pain which isn't really there, can experience pain from limbs which were amputated, and your brain can be fooled by a trick with a rubber hand or visual manipulation, and on and on.

1. Existence exists (there is something)

I have no objections to this, since even a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality is ultimately still going to be running in a simulation in the 'real world,' even if that is not the world we perceive.

The theory suggests that these facts are "undeniable" because to deny them requires them to be true. If you deny that existence exists, you have to exist (because only entities can perform an action like denying something). Additionally, this denial assumes you have a consciousness which allows you to think and perceive and process information.

This is insane troll logic.

It is on the basis of these axioms that Objectivism embraces Atheism. According to Objectivism, reality must exist independently of consciousness. Any consciousness. This means the idea of Creation Ex Nihilo (that God created existence from nothing by sheer force of will) is a fallacy according to Objectivism. Additionally an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God conflicts with the law of identity (i.e. if a thing is what it is, it is only what it is and not anything else, and thus must be specific and finite).
Regardless of the above, the Objectivist position is that reality is real, you can't think it away, and all knowledge assumes that existence exists and things are what they are (i.e. there is something to know) and a knower with the capacity to know exists (i.e. you exist possessing consciousness).

Alternately, even if those three axioms were true now, and if we aren't experiencing a simulation, I would posit that there is still no way to know whether they were true before the universe existed. I would posit an omnipotent god existing before the universe which transformed itself into the universe.

If we are experiencing a simulation, then most of the argument falls apart. We would have no idea what the actual reality is actually like, as it may have completely different physical laws than our simulated reality, so we cannot try to do logic about it using anything reasoned about this one, especially when that reasoning relies on the assumption that we aren't in a simulated reality.

[Fenrir]

I would disagree with this. Things do not have specific natures or identities innately. They may be composed of molecules composed of atoms composed of particles composed of quarks, unless those things aren't matter or whatever, in which case they're made of something else (like photons, neutrinos, etc), and their 'natures' or 'identities' are only labels given to them by observers (us), and they can have more than one 'nature' or 'identity'. (Not to mention that I could point out the empty space between atoms, or between electrons and protons, or the vacuum, when it doesn't contain virtual particles or dust or the like, all of which have been named, have natures, and identities, but are nothing)

If I understand correctly what you are trying to say, being comprised of atoms, which are comprised of hadrons, which are comprised of quarks does not mean that the molecule has three different identities. Molecules are groups of atoms which are groups of hadrons which are groups of quarks (and the binding forces, but that is irrelevant detail). It’s just too expensive and unnecessary for human beings to refer to every single quark and the relationship between them, and we usually can’t detect the individual components anyway, so we refer to clusters of quarks as “chairs”. There are still only quarks (or whatever is left when the division stops, but we refer to them as one.

3. You exist, and you exist possessing consciousness, which is the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

I have no convincing proof that I, and every other human, are not an artificial intelligence in a simulation simulating a human mind, incapable of perceiving anything but the simulation. Furthermore, most animals seem to be so predictable that it almost seems unlikely that their "minds" aren't programs or AIs of some sort. If that is the case, then what we are perceiving is not reality at all, but a convincing (to us) simulated reality, and we are not perceiving anything that exists in the real world, meaning that we do not possess 'consciousness' by that definition.

Illusions and simulations exist, they just aren’t what the deceived think they are, so the definition still stands.

[kaijyuu]

If you were a "simulated AI," you would still exist.

"I think therefore I am" is one of the few things in philosophy no one's really come up with a good argument against.

[Fenrir]

If you were a "simulated AI," you would still exist.

Something else I missed.

[Eagleon]

I have no objections to this, since even a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality is ultimately still going to be running in a simulation in the 'real world,' even if that is not the world we perceive.

Interesting question - what if there is no end to the nesting? We can't argue that it's impossible, because the simulated reality above us doesn't have to abide by our physical laws, and so on for it's parent, ad infinitum. In fact, we can prove this by looking at the variation possible in our own universe - a thing is not necessarily a ball, but it's easily conceivable to make a simulation in which everything is balls. In the Ball-Universe, the existence of Cat is impossible, even in thought - we can think of something cat-shaped and cat-behaved if our physical dimensions are the same, but it wouldn't be an actual Cat. Can we still say we exist for certain when the requirements for the nature of our parent universe are arbitrary?

Going the other direction, you 'think therefore you exist', but this is still a conclusion in isolation from other possible realities. If the reality we're nested inside prohibits our existence somehow - say, no one named 'Steve' is permitted to exist as a silly example - whatever causes the existence of Steves is the real composition of all Steves. But then whatever that is may not be conceivable in the universe above it as well. You can carry this on for however long you like, because there are no constraints we can define without total knowledge, and not necessarily any constraints in the parent universe for the amount of nesting you can do in its simulations.

[Durin Stronginthearm]

"I think therefore I am" is one of the few things in philosophy no one's really come up with a good argument against.

I beg to differ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms is a pretty decent summary of criticisms of the cogito.

[Zrk2]

Then I'll give my thoughts on it (though not all at once, since it would probably be a ridiculously huge post).

In the metaphysics section:

2. Every thing that exists has a specific nature or identity ('A is A' or 'a thing is what it is'). A thing must be something, otherwise it is nothing.

I would disagree with this. Things do not have specific natures or identities innately. They may be composed of molecules composed of atoms composed of particles composed of quarks, unless those things aren't matter or whatever, in which case they're made of something else (like photons, neutrinos, etc), and their 'natures' or 'identities' are only labels given to them by observers (us), and they can have more than one 'nature' or 'identity'. (Not to mention that I could point out the empty space between atoms, or between electrons and protons, or the vacuum, when it doesn't contain virtual particles or dust or the like, all of which have been named, have natures, and identities, but are nothing)

It sounds to me like you are misinterpreting it, or at least that your interpretation differs from mine. The way I see it this simply says that there is an objective reality independent of any consciousness, not that, say, a chair is always a chair, and has a debased form of chair a la Plato.

3. You exist, and you exist possessing consciousness, which is the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

I have no convincing proof that I, and every other human, are not an artificial intelligence in a simulation simulating a human mind, incapable of perceiving anything but the simulation. Furthermore, most animals seem to be so predictable that it almost seems unlikely that their "minds" aren't programs or AIs of some sort. If that is the case, then what we are perceiving is not reality at all, but a convincing (to us) simulated reality, and we are not perceiving anything that exists in the real world, meaning that we do not possess 'consciousness' by that definition.

I'm a big fan of the chinese room thought experiment, so I would dispute this and say that since one can value something one can be certain that you are an entity and not a computer simulation. Furthermore, we cannot know the true nature of reality, but we can perceive all that is apparent and that that must suffice because we are incapable of truly knowing reality.

In fact, even if we are real, we are not perceiving anything in the real world. Those colors you see? Not what is actually there in the real world. Things reflect various wavelengths, but you only have three different kinds of cone cells which each absorb a range of wavelengths and compare the strengths of the signals they get and combine their signals to come up with a color. Which is how you get purple when you see both blue and red light, when there is no such actual color at all (blue and red are on the opposite end of the color spectrum and do not overlap at all). (It is generally used in place of violet as RGB color lights cannot generate violet light)

Anything you perceive is going through processing prior to you becoming aware of it. You don't smell a chemical signature, you perceive the smell of cinnamon, or chicken, or a wet dog, etc. You perceive pain which isn't really there, can experience pain from limbs which were amputated, and your brain can be fooled by a trick with a rubber hand or visual manipulation, and on and on.

I think I responded to this in my last note, but I would say that the sensations you refer to are still acceptable substitutes because they do not change the fact of reality, they just make the data easier for one's consciousness to interpret.

If you were a "simulated AI," you would still exist.

"I think therefore I am" is one of the few things in philosophy no one's really come up with a good argument against.

However it is impossible to write a program that can value, it is only possible to create a simulation that approaches an asymptote at perfection. I previously referenced the Chinese room thought experiment and I hold to that again in that function is not equivalent to "essence," for lack of a better word.

I have no objections to this, since even a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality inside a simulated reality is ultimately still going to be running in a simulation in the 'real world,' even if that is not the world we perceive.

Interesting question - what if there is no end to the nesting? We can't argue that it's impossible, because the simulated reality above us doesn't have to abide by our physical laws, and so on for it's parent, ad infinitum. In fact, we can prove this by looking at the variation possible in our own universe - a thing is not necessarily a ball, but it's easily conceivable to make a simulation in which everything is balls. In the Ball-Universe, the existence of Cat is impossible, even in thought - we can think of something cat-shaped and cat-behaved if our physical dimensions are the same, but it wouldn't be an actual Cat. Can we still say we exist for certain when the requirements for the nature of our parent universe are arbitrary?

Going the other direction, you 'think therefore you exist', but this is still a conclusion in isolation from other possible realities. If the reality we're nested inside prohibits our existence somehow - say, no one named 'Steve' is permitted to exist as a silly example - whatever causes the existence of Steves is the real composition of all Steves. But then whatever that is may not be conceivable in the universe above it as well. You can carry this on for however long you like, because there are no constraints we can define without total knowledge, and not necessarily any constraints in the parent universe for the amount of nesting you can do in its simulations.

Rather like flatworld. I tried to imagine something like this the other night as I fell asleep and I ended up accepting that I am irreparably shaped by this reality, and thus cannot contemplate a reality where, say, the value of pi was different or something like that.

"I think therefore I am" is one of the few things in philosophy no one's really come up with a good argument against.

I beg to differ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms is a pretty decent summary of criticisms of the cogito.

I would say that cognito ergo sum is axiomatic. Of course, when I tried to whip up my own philosophical structure and cohesive philosophy I took that as a starting point, so I'm rather heavily invested in it being axiomatic.