Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Why, because they're genocide or because you hate autodidacts and want to perpetuate your clearly superior formal philosophy?

[LordBucket]

He means that it doesn't prove it to anyone else.

I suppose he can clarify, if that's what he meant. But re-reading his post in the context of his second sentence and the preceding Plato's Cave reference, looks to me like he's using "empirical" to mean "objectively, fundamentally real, independant of observation."

Which is not at all what it means. Weird made the same error several thread pages ago.

No one in he history of the world has ever been able to definitively and/or directly confirm consciousness in more than one test subject.

Yes.

What I mean is that as far as I can tell you're saying "I have subjective expeirence therefore I have subjective experience."

Yes. But now let's look at your statement I was objecting to:

Again, your empirical observation of your own qualia is hardly proof qualia exists because you have a limited perspective.

If you are experienencing qualia, then yes you are experiencing qualia. By definition, if you are experiencing qualia, qualia exists. Like you point out, it's a circular statement. X=X. I think, therefore I think. I observe, therefore observation is occurring.

"Limited perspective" is irrelevant.

You are claiming that that the fact of observation is not proof that observation occurred. You are claiming that X does not imply X.

But beyond that some of hte other posts are right.  We're arguing on very ill-defined terms.  This is one of those "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" arguments.

No. The fact of experience is the only thing that we can truly know for certain. That I am having an experience is a thing that I can absolutely, definitely know, because I am experiencing it. The experiencing of it does not necessarily mean that there's any genuinely external world out there for me to experience. All of reality could be a hallucination.  Yes, its is an unjustifiable, illogical statement of faith to say that "I observe X, therefore X is correct and valid."

But the fact that experience is being had, that is certain. And it is the only thing that is certain.

[Bohandas]

He means that it doesn't prove it to anyone else.

I suppose he can clarify, if that's what he meant. But re-reading his post in the context of his second sentence and the preceding Plato's Cave reference, looks to me like he's using "empirical" to mean "objectively, fundamentally real, independant of observation."

No, I think he's used it correctly. He clearly means it in the sense of something that is directly observed. The issue is that it can only be directly observed by the particular subject in question.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

*drags LordBucket out of Descartes' meditative state* (though you're right that his argument isn't arguing with ill-defined terms being the problem, it is still a problem)

Why, because they're genocide or because you hate autodidacts and want to perpetuate your clearly superior formal philosophy?

Dictionaries aren't philosophical is why. It's not like these things have 100% consensus.

[LordBucket]

Well, at least there seems to be a consensus that we need to define terms here.

So, which do you guys want to start with? I vote experience/qualia. Again, dictionaries don't count!

I'm not sure it can be reasonably defined. While you're at it, try to define "happy." We can describe it. We can play synonym games with it. But give a definitive "if X meets this test it is therefore conscious experience" ...I'm not sure how to do that here.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Now you're literally arguing over grammar. Also, that sentence is still grammatically accurate. You asked why. I provided an answer, followed by stating "is" followed by restating enough of the original question as to provide the proper context to connect the two.

Now I'm arguing over grammar.

[Eagleon]

If you are experienencing qualia, then yes you are experiencing qualia. By definition, if you are experiencing qualia, qualia exists. Like you point out, it's a circular statement. X=X. I think, therefore I think. I observe, therefore observation is occurring.

This relies on the assumption that the universe exists.

QED.

[LordBucket]

This relies on the assumption that the universe exists.

No, it doesn't. In fact, I specifically said so in the post you're responding to:

The experiencing of it does not necessarily mean that there's any genuinely external world out there for me to experience. All of reality could be a hallucination.  Yes, its is an unjustifiable, illogical statement of faith to say that "I observe X, therefore X is correct and valid."

But the fact that experience is being had, that is certain. And it is the only thing that is certain.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But the universe would also include your personal world if there's no outside, and even if there is. So you are definitely relying on the assumption that there's a something.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

W/e, you can't actually move to Plato's Cave, movement is impossible. Turtles, arrows something or other.

Hail Zeno!

[LordBucket]

But the universe would also include your personal world if there's no outside, and even if there is.

If you define universe in such a way as to specifically include subjective experience...which is completely reasonable, even so, one is still not "assuming" that subjective experience exists. One is observing it. Remember, the initial premise was that experience is being experienced. Which, in my case, I can confirm, because I am experiencing an experience. I can't confirm that my experience is valid or correct, or has any relationship with an assumed external world, because the only thing I am aware of, is...what I'm aware of.

Your assertion that "the universe includes your experience" doesn't change anything. No assumptions are required to validate the fact of experience, because again...experience is being experienced.

So you are definitely relying on the assumption that there's a something.

No, I am observing.

[Bohandas]

W/e, you can't actually move to Plato's Cave, movement is impossible. Turtles, arrows something or other.

Hail Zeno!

Solvitur ambulando

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If you define universe in such a way as to specifically include subjective experience...which is completely reasonable, even so, one is still not "assuming" that subjective experience exists. One is observing it. Remember, the initial premise was that experience is being experienced. Which, in my case, I can confirm, because I am experiencing an experience. I can't confirm that my experience is valid or correct, or has any relationship with an assumed external world, because the only thing I am aware of, is...what I'm aware of.

Your assertion that "the universe includes your experience" doesn't change anything. No assumptions are required to validate the fact of experience, because again...experience is being experienced.

So you are definitely relying on the assumption that there's a something.

No, I am observing.

I don't think you are experiencing an experience, you're experiencing an infinitely regressive hallucination of an experience. Please stop doing that, you're taking up exponentially increasing portions of the Godhead's bandwidth. Also, there is no I, so don't respond to the void like I'm not just a part of your frankly very vividly sarcastic imagination not-experience.

W/e, you can't actually move to Plato's Cave, movement is impossible. Turtles, arrows something or other.

Hail Zeno!

Solvitur ambulando

Diogenes can go- OH WAIT.

[Bohandas]

I wouldn't put too mich stock in Plato. He was a certifiable nutcase. His whole philosophy was based on an inverted map-territory relationship in which the map was a flawed representation of the thing being mapped.

[SirQuiamus]

...
In any case, YMMV - it might even be cryptochristianity, but do you post in a thread about 'actual' christianity asking if they ever get tired of 'inane nonsense'?

Yes, I do – if the Christians in that thread are trying to rebrand their religious dogma as Science. (It does happen: They call it "Intelligent Design.")

I have no problem with honest Christians, or enthusiastic SF fans, or actual scientists doing AI research, but I do have a problem with unprincipled hacks who mix speculative fiction with pseudomath and scientistic jargon and market their melange as an evidence-based programme of Perfect Rationality. This criticism is not aimed at any transhumanist on Bay12, but as an inveterate internet asshole and keyboard warrior, I cannot help being triggered whenever someone speaks approvingly of the H+ brand of patent medicine – when otherwise nice and reasonable people express ideas that are so clearly WRONG. [Obligatory xkcd link omitted.]
_{(I'm a regular lurker and occasional shitposter on LessWrong and a few other H+ sites, so you can see where I'm coming from.)}

I apologize for my dickery, but I will keep arguing against things that I disagree with for as long as people keep arguing for them.