Print

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

[wierd]

I find the revelation that free will is illusory very liberating, actually. I do not mind the prospect of existence as a meat robot.

[wierd]

I rather enjoy it-- it means, without question, that similarly deterministic systems, like AIs, can achieve identical levels of sentience as my own, on superior hardware.

It also means that there is no secret sauce, and that my existence can be sustained on any other suitable architecture. Those are two very likeable things.

It also means that with sufficient effort, all forms of human behavior can be determined, which means that all forms of unhappiness can be addressed.

[McTraveller]

Within the domain of "ideal human behavior", the solution that closest reaches the global ideal (there are no misbehaving humans; all humans behave within established parameters) is the global optima.

There may be any number of other, local, optima that are stable, but are not the closest to the global ideal. Evolution does not concern itself with ideal solutions-- only solutions that are sufficiently reliable.

Perhaps - but what is the definition of "misbehaving humans", or those "established parameters" - who is to say those are optimal in the first place?

(I am, of course, just being devil's advocate here, in case my tone isn't clear.)

[wierd]

The definition of those parameters is rather what this thread's namesake is all about, no?  Philosophy, is the study of how one should live their life-- and by conjunction-- how society should operate. It is thus the study of what the ideal parameters for human behavior should be.

[McTraveller]

Well, there's free will, and there's practically free will...

It's more amusing to consider it from the standpoint of movies like Brave, where the protagonist kept harping about making her own destiny, but kept following the wisps around... I can't tell if that was on purpose or not to be honest.  It's almost like the quote from the Coke CEO regarding New Coke: "We're not that dumb, and we're not that smart."

[NJW2000]

Necroing this because I have a stupid idea and why not.

So... I've been wondering if the Cogito (the logical "Proof": I exist, therefore I am) holds for imaginary beings.

Unless you define "exist" as relative to yourself (very sensible position imo, but people are pretty attached to the old external reality idea):

1. Imagine a sentient being, perhaps identical to yourself except heavily into pet portraiture.
2. Consider whether this being is capable of stating the Cogito to itself (i.e. saying that it thinks, therefore, it is). Hypothetically, this being has a structure in its brain that contains the Cogito just as you do.
3. Hold on: relative to itself, the being does exist, just as you do. It may be a figment of your imagination, but it may be imagining you as well: how do you tell "objectively" who is real?
4. Unless "existence" is measured relative to you, this imaginary being has as much claim to "existence" as you do.
5. Try waving.

I think it's at least a pretty good argument for considering "existence" as a quality of something relative to one's own perception. People have pointed out what may be flaws in the Cogito, but lots more subscribe to it.

[Criptfeind]

3. Hold on: relative to itself, the being does exist, just as you do. It may be a figment of your imagination, but it may be imagining you as well: how do you tell "objectively" who is real?

I think, therefor I am? I can know that I think, therefor in some form I am, but there's no proof that this fictional existence is thinking, even if it was thinking of me. If it was, then it would clearly exist, but there's no way for me to know that.

[MrRoboto75]

Wouldn't the imaginary being's thoughts just be an extension of my own?  It cannot think or do without me, even if subconsciously, imagining it doing so.

[Criptfeind]

A imaginary being wouldn't be able to think at all, at best, the person imagining it could imagine it as thinking, but that wouldn't be thinking anymore then me installing a speaker in your mouth and talking out of it would be you speaking.

[Trekkin]

A imaginary being wouldn't be able to think at all, at best, the person imagining it could imagine it as thinking, but that wouldn't be thinking anymore then me installing a speaker in your mouth and talking out of it would be you speaking.

What about a computer simulation of a being? Can they not think because they cannot exist without the computer processing their thoughts?

Do we not exist because we cannot think without our brains?

If consciousness is software, how is it that it can run on a real machine but not a virtual one?

[Egan_BW]

I imagine an imaginary character who has the magical ability to pop out of my head and into the real world, right in front of me. Nothing happens.

[Criptfeind]

What about a computer simulation of a being? Can they not think because they cannot exist without the computer processing their thoughts?

Indeed, that'd be the computer thinking would it not?

Do we not exist because we cannot think without our brains?

We are our brains, and our body and all of us as well. Without your brain you'd hardly be you would you?

If consciousness is software, how is it that it can run on a real machine but not a virtual one?

That sounds fair enough, I suppose you could say that the imaginary being is thinking. But it's still a sub part of the person imagining it. A virtual machine is still just a program on a real machine, the real machine is doing the thinking. I suppose it depends on how you think of it.

[NJW2000]

I imagine an imaginary character who has the magical ability to pop out of my head and into the real world, right in front of me. Nothing happens.

Ah, but you can't properly describe something intrinsically able to pass between worlds that does not have meta-properties beyond the scope of its world. And nothing can have meta-properties beyond the scope of its world, worlds are by definition separate and absolute for anything in them.

Meanwhile, I only claim that something can have a non-meta property, something easily within the scope of its world, the conception of the Cogito. And this property implies "existence".

[Criptfeind]

It can only be applied to oneself though. This doesn't confirm the existence of anyone but the thinker himself. I can think that you might have this property, but I have no evidence to make that conclusion. Equally I might think that a fictional existence has that property, but I have no evidence to make that conclusion. This idea (from my understanding of the philosophy of it) can't even be used to be sure of the existence of other people, let alone fictional concepts.

I've never followed step 2 in Descartes plan for rebuilding one's world view anyway. Personally I'm still stuck unsure if any of you are real, let alone a fictional person.

[Paxiecrunchle]

Posting to watch and probably join in later.