Philosophy, Science & Reality

[DrP]

The rock, though, will not believe itself to be human.

 

Believe whatever you want - I'm not going round pages and pages with you repeating the same stuff... it's obvious. It's why I said "oh, never mind" with an implied face palm when I first entered the conversation as I knew you would just stick to your guns and just repeat the same stuff without actually bringing any actual substance to the discussion other than "I don't believe it".

 

I'll ask one more time - "HOW can you prove you are not a simulation"? Just saying "It's obvious, I don't believe that I am" is not proof that you are not.

[Mordred]

Wouldn't a programmed simulation not follow identical responses to repeated identical stimuli?

 

I would think that could be one test.

[dimreepr]

Wouldn't a programmed simulation not follow identical responses to repeated identical stimuli?

 

I would think that could be one test.

 

Indeed, but I'm unsure how it relates to this topic.

[Mordred]

Think about that automated car. Every single time that car encounters identical conditions. It will follow its programming and arrive at the same decision.

 

A self aware human won't always arrive at the same decisions regardless of identical stimuli.

 

If your looking at to test if something is a simulated program. Look for consistent repeatability. A simulation must always follow its programming.

[dimreepr]

Think about that automated car. Every single time that car encounters identical conditions. It will follow its programming and arrive at the same decision.

 

A self aware human won't always arrive at the same decisions regardless of identical stimuli.

 

If your looking at to test if something is a simulated program. Look for consistent repeatability. A simulation must always follow its programming.

 

But that's my point, given the context of this thread.

[Mordred]

Well then you agree there is a methodology to test a simulation vs reality. One based on logical science not philosophy. After all philosophy rarely "tests".

 

That alone places science a step above philosophy in determining reality. The testing requirement. Also in order to test how well a model understands or describes reality will depend on the ability to make predictions. (making predictions of course being the mathematics).

 

Which also implies a greater level of understanding of the dynamic than a philosophical debate.

 

The testing aspect will often favor one model over another. This can sometimes end a philisophical debate.

 

A philosophical debate based strictly on philosophy without applying science would never end. Two good philosophers can always find counter arguments to any argument presented.

 

"The tests of what we understand of reality is the strongest form of argument"

 

The tests will tend to favor a particular model or philosophical debate. Without tests the arguments can be endless.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Mordred

[Randolpin]

First I want to ask, why solipsist insist that all around us are hallucinations? Why is this so?

 

My argument which is called conscious individual argument, is I think, the stepping stone to defy solipsism. I am conscious myself, you are conscious yourself, we are conscious ourselves. This discussion are worthless If you are only my illusions and I am only the one that exist.But obviously, it is not. And you know that.

 

Again from the idea above that there are many conscious individual thus prove that I am not the only one that exist. We can't say it is only due to my illusion that I conclude this. If you ask, what is the evidence, again the evidence is in this discussion itself. This discussion is worthless of you are only my illusions. So I think that you are not my illusions because you are as rational, have ideas as I.

A philosophical debate based strictly on philosophy without applying science would never end. Two good philosophers can always find counter arguments to any argument presented.

"The tests of what we understand of reality is the strongest form of argument"

The tests will tend to favor a particular model or philosophical debate. Without tests the arguments can be endless.

I am not completely agree with this. I think the best way to study reality is to combine science and philosophy. We are able to speculate soundly if we are able to form arguments base on valid premises proven and validated by science.

 

Philosophical debates would end if one of the debaters speculate soundly.

 

 

I have also this new argument. This is called sameness argument.

 

This argument proves that others exist as well as you because you have the same characteristics to them physically, intellectual rationality, etc.

 

Since I have the same characteristics as you being a human being, therefore it follows logically that you have also consciousness just like me and therefore you exist also just like me. You are not being fooled by your senses because your senses agree with each other and also senses also agree to the logic above.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Randolpin

[Mordred]

It is quite possible both in philosophy and science to have endless and yet equally sound debates.

 

Keep in mind I stated a good philosopher ie one that knows which arguments are equally sound and valid until tested.

 

I also did not state there is no room for philosophy both philosophy and science has their roles.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Mordred

[tar]

DrP,

 

I am a realist, in the sense that I do not subscribe to cancelling arguments that rely on the fact that you can't prove a negative to prove their point.

 

So when did you stop beating your wife?

 

That everything could be an illusion is such an argument. Everything could be a strawberry sundae and you can't prove otherwise.

 

Stupid for a scientist to propose such nonsense.

 

For substance, browse Wiki's article on "theory of mind"

 

iNow's thread on how religion hijacks the neurocortical mechanisms of the brain included some work on the study of the portion of the brain that develops at around 3 or 4 years old, that is responsible for our ability to put ourselves in other people's shoes, also responsible for our ability to converse with unseen others, and heavily involved in our resolution of moral dilemmas.

 

A paragraph from Theory of Mind follows.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Definition[edit]

Theory of mind is a theory insofar as the mind is the only thing being directly observed.^[1] The presumption that others have a mind is termed a theory of mind because each human can only intuit the existence of their own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another. It is typically assumed that others have minds by analogy with one's own, and this assumption is based on the reciprocal, social interaction, as observed in joint attention,^[5] the functional use of language,^[6] and the understanding of others' emotions and actions.^[7] Having a theory of mind allows one to attribute thoughts, desires, and intentions to others, to predict or explain their actions, and to posit their intentions. As originally defined, it enables one to understand that mental states can be the cause of—and thus be used to explain and predict—the behavior of others.^[1] Being able to attribute mental states to others and understanding them as causes of behavior implies, in part, that one must be able to conceive of the mind as a "generator of representations".^[8][9] If a person does not have a complete theory of mind it may be a sign of cognitive or developmental impairment.

 

 

And here is a link to the scientist that studied this area of the brain.

https://www.ted.com/speakers/rebecca_saxe

Edited July 5, 2017 by tar

[robinpike]

The rock, though, will not believe itself to be human.

 

Believe whatever you want - I'm not going round pages and pages with you repeating the same stuff... it's obvious. It's why I said "oh, never mind" with an implied face palm when I first entered the conversation as I knew you would just stick to your guns and just repeat the same stuff without actually bringing any actual substance to the discussion other than "I don't believe it".

 

I'll ask one more time - "HOW can you prove you are not a simulation"? Just saying "It's obvious, I don't believe that I am" is not proof that you are not.

 

And to make it clear on the above point, it is not about the likelihood (or belief) of what we are, but what can be proved absolutely.

 

Wouldn't a programmed simulation not follow identical responses to repeated identical stimuli?

 

I would think that could be one test.

 

Just to be clear, if you mean day by day the 'person simulator' experiencing the same stimuli, bear in mind that the 'person simulator' would be a learning program, in the same way that when we learn, we may change our response to the same stimuli.

[tar]

robinpike,

Two points. One, who are you attempting to prove this to?

 

And how are you assuming the person simulator is capable of considering that it has a mind? If we as human's require a Right Temporoparietal Junction to even develop a theory of mind for ourselves? And the person simulator demonstrably lacks a functioning Right Temporoparietal Junction, which with to notice its own mind.

 

Regards, TAR,

So you have not provided a mechanism through which the person simulator would think it had a mind, so the question of whether the person simulator would be able to tell if it was a simulation or not, would not come up.

which, I just realized provides a proof of mind

 

Only a real mind could consider whether or not it was real.

A proof Rene already offered those many years ago.

Cogito ergo sum

Edited July 5, 2017 by tar

[DrP]

How do you know this? Again your response is "I don't believe it, I believe this"... and you can't see that you are doing it.

 

 

QUOTE: "When did you stop beating your wife"

I do not understand the question about beating my wife? Shall I ask you personal questions about your sexual desire for your own daughter?

 

 

QUOTE: "Only a real mind could consider whether it was real or not"

 

- Nonsense again - how can you possibly know this? You can't, it is what you believe but you do not know this for certain - it is impossible.

 

QUOTE: "I am a realist .... can't prove a negative to prove their point"

 

I am a realist too. You are totally missing the point again/as usual. I don't believe it either - I just can't PROOVE it. No -one can, so to say that "a computer would know it isn't real because of the wires coming out of it" or whatever idiocy you wrote back there is just jaw dropping. It's why I commented. It is also why I shouldn't have gotten involved, if you can't comprehend something so basic it is just as dumb of me for arguing with you.

[Mordred]

Isn't this talk about AI computer simulation etc off topic for the OP of this thread?

 

Isn't this thread not suppose to be about philosophy vs science?

 

Secondly everyone should keep personal slurs to themselves.

 

As we have no AI computer, we really do not know how consistent its responses would be. Ie when its tired or emotional.

 

In humans the last two induces a greater chance of making mistakes. However as that is off topic. I will not continue to discuss the simulation aspects on this thread.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Mordred

[DrP]

Well said Mordred.

 

In defence of the topic though, talking about a scientific construct that replicates reality and then discussing philosophically about what it thinks.... does that not come under the title of the thread, Philosophy, Science and Reality? The whole simulation discussion is relevant imo, but I won't discuss it anymore - I only came in to comment on one post.

 

PS - without wanting to continue off topic (although I don't believe it is) I do not agree with what you wrote in post#227 - it would depend upon how good the simulation was. You are presuming a simulation based on the technology we have now.

Edited July 5, 2017 by DrP

[Mordred]

In a sense being a programmer as one of my many talents I have an excellent handle on how computers and automated equipment works.

 

This includes highly advanced robotic systems. I even studied animatronics for a while.

 

There is a huge difference between how chemical vs electronic signals. However that aside the human mind has capabilities we have never been able to even simulate.

 

Intuition being one exanple as well as true emotion. Yes we can simulate emotion but were a long ways away from true emotion

 

Guessing what we might one day be capable or what our AI may or may not be capable of in the future is guesswork plain and simple.

 

Even then one just has to identify the differences between real and simulation then develop a test. There will always be some differences.

 

With todays understanding repeatability is a valid test. Will we get greater mistakes simply because the machine has AI.

 

Seems counter productive to program greater errors due to tiredness and emotion.

Edited July 5, 2017 by Mordred

[DrP]

You are not wrong... buuuut.. if we were a simulation of humans from the 20th/21st century to test out whatever the programmer was testing... all we would know was the level of tech you are talking about.. I am saying that there would be no way to actually know. your test might not work for a 30th century human sim bot programmed to think he was a human in the 21st century. Besides, it doesn't need to be a fully human sim robot... it just needs a brain/processor to think it is.

 

(I do not believe that we are, obviously, but I am saying that I do not think you have a test to disprove that reality, and just saying "well I'd feel the wires coming out of my arse" or some thing to that effect that that other guy posted doesn't win the argument imo).

[dimreepr]

I did try to nip this tangent in the bud, many post's ago, because it has no bearing on "cogito ergo sum" which can only be a belief.

[Mordred]

I did try to nip this tangent in the bud, many post's ago, because it has no bearing on "cogito ergo sum" which can only be a belief.

I saw that, here is the thing. The OP Isn't asking us to define reality.

 

His OP specifies what is the better methodology to define reality. Science or philosophy.

[dimreepr]

I saw that, here is the thing. The OP Isn't asking us to define reality.

 

His OP specifies what is the better methodology to define reality. Science or philosophy.

 

Fair enough, I was caught up in the solipsism question.

[Mordred]

 

Fair enough, I was caught up in the solipsism question.

Easily done. However it does demonstrate a key difference between philosophy and scientific methodology.

 

When you apply a mathematical model. Ypu specify the conditions that model is valid for. So its more difficult to get "caught up into...".

 

Where a verbal debate is far easier to get sidetracked.

[dimreepr]

Easily done. However it does demonstrate a key difference between philosophy and scientific methodology.

 

When you apply a mathematical model. Ypu specify the conditions that model is valid for. So its more difficult to get "caught up into...".

 

Where a verbal debate is far easier to get sidetracked.

 

Even easier when one doesn't speak the language.

[Eise]

First I want to ask, why solipsist insist that all around us are hallucinations? Why is this so?

 

My argument which is called conscious individual argument, is I think, the stepping stone to defy solipsism. I am conscious myself, you are conscious yourself, we are conscious ourselves. This discussion are worthless If you are only my illusions and I am only the one that exist.But obviously, it is not. And you know that.

 

That is nonsense. In a dream you might discuss with other people too, but those people are produced in your mind. They could even harm you in your dream!

 

There is no rigid argument against solipsism. There is also no rigid argument in favour of solipsism. I think a better question would be what difference it would make for me. I personally think that if you go really into the matter, you will realise there is no practical difference.

 

Philosophy can in some cases show the uselessness of a question. The question about solipsism is such a one in my opinion. But some philosophers might not agree with me...

[dimreepr]

 

Even easier when one doesn't speak the language.

 

But then that's when philosophy comes to the for; if I lack your language, all I have is empathy.

[tar]

DrP,

 

I of course know you don't beat your wife. That was the point. You can't prove a negative. You can't stop beating your wife, if you never started, so the question is impossible to answer, yet you know the truth, you just can not prove it, once the question is made. I was drawing an analogy to the solipsism question, you of course know the truth, you just can't prove a negative.

 

So I take the opposite task and concentrate on the evidence that there is, that you have a mind, regardless of the fact that I can not know this for sure.

 

But follow me here. For me to think I have a mind, I MUST be capable of developing a theory of mind. The ability to view yourself objectively in this fashion, requires having a mechanism within your brain that is capable of taking "you" and putting that observer in someone else's or something else's "place". It is done in science all the time. The very idea of the models we are talking about requires the ability to have one thing stand for another, to consider what it would "be like" to be the thing under study. This operation requires two minds, one's own, and one's own in the place of the entity under study. Einstein had observers all over the place, that were given hypothetical minds. Science has peer reviewers. Other minds, meant to check reality for the same conditions you found. The whole operation, philosophy, science and reality, requires at it's base a mind that is investigating, recording and manipulating the place, and then only when this mind is assumed to be real, is there any reason to continue the investigation. Then the question of whether someone else has a mind, like yours, can be asked...but the fact that there is science (requiring peer review) and language (requiring a second party, or a internal construct,) to share your thoughts with and philosophy (requiring the consideration of other people's thoughts, by definition), and a reality to share with these other minds, already has the question of whether other minds exist, answered in the affirmative.

 

Regards, TAR

for instance, if one scientist makes some progress, but allows for the fact that he/she stood on the shoulders of giants to make such strides...the fact the other scientists existed, and had not only minds, but exceptional ones, is a given

Edited July 5, 2017 by tar

[dimreepr]

that you have a mind, regardless of the fact that I can not know this for sure.

 

Anything that follows this, is empty gesturing.