What entity is this assertion directed towards? I need to see if it is as asserted, before assenting to it. — unenlightened

I use the word entity rather than object.

Stick around a while and you will see why.

An assertion is true if the entity (object) toward which the assertion is directed shows itself as it is asserted.

The assertion that the car (entity, object) is blue is true if the car shows itself to be blue.

So, I'm saying, of those situations you are taking issue with, many fall into one of two camps, both of which can actually be defended. — Pseudonym

very few fall into the camp of amenable to empirical "proof."

And none of mine do.

I leave to science the empirically provable.

That is their thing and they are good at.

You have entreated us to "not demand proof" — Pseudonym

my choosing the word "demand" was no accident.

it is nonsensical to expect me to tell you what I am saying when you are continually telling me what I am saying.

of course. But as I stated in the OP, when a particular proposition reaches the point that it can likely be resolved by empirical evidence, then they are likely to become scientific propositions and philosophy will move on.

That is why science split from philosophy in the first place. It was the place to go with those ideas amenable to empirical proof. Aristotle is not Plato and no one expected Plato to provide "proof." Plato was a philosopher. Aristotle was a philosopher very much interested in science. And the rest is history.

As for solipsism, there are few adherents and empirical evidence is not the reason.

There are no criteria of validity in science. — tom

Almost as if there is no such thing as the scientific method or controls or stuff like that.

I will let my boss know and we can all go home. Of course, we will to find new jobs. But whatever.

We code scientific research papers.

Most of them do meet our requirements.

One of the keywords for rejecting papers is CRITERIA.

And guess what that means?

yes.

And it is the example that motivated the OP.

There was a discussion this morning regarding what happens after we die.

I do not believe I participated in the discussion. If I did, it was tertiary.

One comment was to the effect:

that the soul is not a material thing so it could certainly live on after our material death.

that statement was met with the one word demand "proof!"

It just struck me as extremely rude to demand "proof!" when the person making the demand knew there was no such proof to be had and to thereby perfunctorily dismiss such a personal and intimate statement.

Because the methods of criticism available are different. — tom

I would say because the criteria of validity are different.

Has it occurred to you that I chose the word "demand" (as opposed to request) for a reason?

I am rarely bothered by a reasonable counter argument that raises the issue of empirical "proof" in regard to a reasonably argued philosophical proposition.

But yes, I am always pained when a reasonably argued philosophical proposition is met with a "demand" for empirical "proof."

Aren't you?

So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that some calls for proof may be less valid in philosophy than they would be in science. — Pseudonym

No, that is not what I am saying.

It is the nature of the proposition that determines whether a demand for empirical "proof" is appropriate.
And a philosophical proposition is different than a scientific proposition.

As a result, applying criteria developed for evaluating scientific propositions to philosophical propositions is not a good idea.

No one would suggest we apply the criteria developed for evaluating music to evaluating pizza.

I'm having great trouble understanding what it is you're saying. — Pseudonym

You are free to read it as many times as you wish.

So truth is objective. And 'objectively true' is a tautology, like 'truly true'. — unenlightened

Or actually real? Or really true? Or truly real? Or actually true?

I love the classics. :smile:

Truth(or falsehood) does not depend on assertion, it is a property of assertion. — unenlightened

And if there is nothing asserted, then indeed there is is nothing of which it can be further asserted that it is true or false. — unenlightened

The above strike me as inconsistent.

If I had said, the existence of truth (or falsehood) depends upon the existence of an assertion, would you have agreed? I do believe that would reconcile the apparent inconsistency in the above statements.

I think we are close.

I restate my notion: an assertion is true if the entity toward which the assertion is directed shows itself to be as asserted.

I am uncertain as to what subject/object adds to the discussion. Feel free to enlighten me in that regard.

Whereas arguing that "... it is a red herring and you know it" is a much more reasonable example of a counter argument? — Pseudonym

No. It is a simplification of my thesis.

Going forward, there is no need for you to continue telling me what I am saying. I know what I am saying.

If you want to argue with what I say rather than what you say I am saying, feel free to do so.

But if you want to argue with what you say I am saying rather that with what I am saying, you will be arguing with yourself.

Have a good weekend.

A demand for "proof" is not a counter argument to a reasonably argued philosophical proposition. Instead, it is a red herring and you know it.

I disagree. If truth is dependent upon an assertion, then absent an assertion, there is no truth. And if you believe in the subject/object dichotomy, then you would agree that objects do not make assertions? Subjects make assertions. There can be no truth in the absence of a being that makes assertions.

But aside from the fact that people use the words I don't know I'd go so far as to say there is some advantage to using them -- they are ambiguous and often seem to result in more misunderstanding than understanding. — Moliere

I agree. They are symptoms of our Cartesian hangover. We have essentially grown up in a culture that long ago adopted the idea that we are self-sufficient minds (res cogitans-subjects-internal) that through the miracle of transcendence are able to interact with self-sufficient matter out there in the world (res-extensa-objects-external). Simply put, we consider ourselves to be on the outside looking in.
Yet we are the consummate insider. We know of no other being that is more inside the world than us. And so we are on the inside thinking we are on the outside looking in and then we wonder why we are so confused by what we see. Significant cognitive dissonance is built in to our Cartesian culture.

The first five words of my post are "Though I concede an overlap"

Your third sentence says "What you're saying is that demanding proof of a philosophical statement is meaningless because it deals only with that realm which cannot be proven." Emphasis added.

1. At no point did I say it was meaningless. Instead, the more reasonable interpretation of my argument is that a demand for empirical "proof" is less likely (perhaps significantly so) to be valid within the realm of philosophy than in the realm of science. Consequently, there is reason to suspect the demand may be less meaningful in one realm than in another. So your claim that I said a demand for proof is meaningless is at best an unreasonable interpretation of my position.

2. And staying within just your third sentence. At no point did I say that philosophy deals "only" with propositions that cannot be proven. What I did say is "by and large" those are the types of statements with which philosophy deals.

I also went on to say to the effect that most of philosophy is not data driven though some is while most of science is data driven though some is not.. So even if you mistakenly interpreted me as meaning "only" when I clearly did not say only, such an interpretation is clearly unreasonable in light of what I actually said.

So we are only into your third sentence and you have offered two extreme terms to characterize my non-extreme position and you have offered two unreasonable interpretations of what I actually did say. As a result and with all due respect, would it be unreasonable for me to suspect that you may be trying to make my position appear more extreme than it is? I sure hope you are not doing that.

I agree.

I am a research scientist though by education I am a lawyer. I work for a company who has acontract with the EPA. We assess and code scientific papers. Very of few of the papers meet our criteria for coding. There are very few papers rejected for lack of empirical proof. There are many papers rejected because there method is unsound. And most of those rejected as unsound contain sufficient empirical proof.

For me, I always considered the greatest common ground is the focus upon the nature of reality (philosophy?) and/or the reality of nature (science?).

By asking about the place of proof in philosophy, you have sort of answered your own question. But I would rephrase as what is philosophy's place in relation to scientific proof. And first and foremost, it is not philosophy's place to provide it. And for the most part, science adequately self polices itself regarding its own standards of proof.

And consistent with my OP, I assert it is philosophy's place to discuss when and where a demand for "proof" is reasonable, unreasonable, helpful, harmful, necessary, unnecessary, made in good faith, intended to obstruct, and so on. . .

Perhaps the thread will go in some of those directions.

I guess we will see.

I want to start an argument obviously. That is going to be hard if you won't disagree — apokrisis

I disagree.

You couldn't be more WRONG!!

Starting an argument with me is as easy as riding a bicycle.

And when I knock you off of that bicycle, you need to just back on keep going until I knock you off again.

You nailed it. "Scientism" is the word. Thank you. :smile:

Note that the Socratic Dialogues themselves are discussions about the meaning of various terms; working out what we mean is pivotal to philosophy. If we begin by simply stipulating meaning, then arguably we are not actually doing any philosophy. — Banno
It's the kind of meaning I was referring to. I'd say that we can't sensibly start going into a philosophical discussion without those being clear. Whether the defining is part of the philosophical discussion or preceeds it, I don't really care, as long as it happens. — Tomseltje

Well said by the both of you.

They are called dialogues for a reason.

In my experience, people unwilling to define their terms when asked do not know what they are talking about and when the discussion gets tough, they will be the first to call you a name while they are running for the exit.

He was very well aware of contemporary developments in science, — SophistiCat

I conceded the overlap in my first sentence. My experience tells me that those interested in philosophy are more likely to be aware of developments in science than the average person and that those interested in science are more likely to be aware of the history of philosophy than the average person.

Most philosophy is not data drive while some is. Most science is data driven while some is not. And that matters when discussing science and that matters when discussing philosophy.

And besides, we all know the person demanding "proof" rarely makes such demands regarding ideas they agree with. In that sense, it is a form a fallacious reasoning that relieves the person making the demand of their philosophical duty to make a counter argument and to actually give some thought to ideas they do not like.

It is fallacious in the sense the it's motivation is to suggest that the argument being made is to be dismissed for reasons that have nothing to do with the soundness of the argument. And that is anti-philosophical.

Isn't the rational method of philosophy just like the rational method of science in that one puts forward some reasonable general concept and then suggest that these kinds of particular consequences will serve as the truth-makers? — apokrisis

Yes. The rational method of philosophy and science share the same procedures for establishing propositions. However, the scientific approach rejects as non-scientific any and every proposition which is not at least in theory amenable to scientific proof. Philosophy does not do the same.

And unlike philosophy and with the possible exception of QM, the rational method of philosophy is not the only method of philosophy. Please see Thus Spake Zarathustra by F.W. Nietzsche.

In some ways, the rationale method of philosophy is continually over thrown yet always makes a comeback. it is the Freddie Kreuger of philosophical methods.

indeed. Though I conceded the overlap in my very first sentence.

How are you defining empirical evidence? — apokrisis

I suspect mostly the same as you. Amenable to some form of measurement resulting from replicable procedures. And as empirically minded as the Greeks may have been, nobody ever expected Plato to provide empirical evidence of his ontological theories.

are you making your own statement or do you want me to answer questions? If it is the former, there is little in your statement I disagree with. If it is the latter, I would prefer to answer one question at a time. Please advise.

Why? Isn't that what all of computing is based on? Switches turning on and off to get to some sort of end. Isn't that math in its entirety? All math has a solution, even if no man has found the answer. — TogetherTurtle

"Reasoning is but reckoning." -Thomas Hobbes

You may find this hard to believe, but not all philosophers agree with Mr. Hobbes.

Are you suggesting that all problems are mathematical in nature and therefore have a mathematical solution?

Are you suggesting that people truly interested in the nature of being are going to satisfied with know that there is an answer but that we just do not know what it is? Either god does/does not exist. We just do not know which. But it's all cool. Few people have ever asked whether there was an answer. Instead, the ask what the answer is. Surely you must have notice that?

And if your answer is yes, are you going to be rude to all who disagree with you? (there will be many of them).

Are you familiar with Professor Hubert Dreyfus?

I strongly recommend his book What computers cannot do. It is a bit outdated. But his primary premise is that the "world" (which I am confident in this case does not mean what you think it means) probably does not mean what you think it means) cannot be represented with a Cartesian subject/object approach.

Seriously, a reading group for Heidegger's Being and Time will get off the ground in the next few days. If you think a computational approach to being is the answer, you need to get in on this reading group. It is extremely hard stuff, but you will never again look at the world in the same way.

Why? Isn't that what all of computing is based on? Switches turning on and off to get to some sort of end. Isn't that math in its entirety? All math has a solution, even if no man has found the answer. Even if there is more than one answer, we know yes to those, and no to the rest. I don't think I have to tell you that we wouldn't be communicating right now if yes or no answers were useless. — TogetherTurtle

That is a fair enough question. But I did not say they were useless. I said to the effect they were considered to have less meaningful content. I did not say they had no content at all. A real life example is (and I am going on memory here), there was a time when a little more than half of Americans surveyed said they were unhappy with Obamacare. But further digging into the issue found that about 30 percent of those who were unhappy with it were unhappy because they would have preferred a single payer option.

And for the most part, those questions that can honestly be answered yes/no or true/false are not questions philosophy deals with. For example, it may be technically correct to say freewill is true/false but we just do not know which. At true as that may be, we already know that. And telling people interested in the issue what they already know is generally not a significant contribution to the discussion. Just saying.

Quite to the contrary. The species I was born into is the whole reason I can be who I am. The human intellect is unmatched. If I was a dog, I would not be here typing this I assure you. — TogetherTurtle

the fact that you take pride in your ability to type only proves my point. Your standards are too low. And stop with the type/token stuff. The human intellect may be unmatched, but it is clear that cannot be said of your's.

.

This one is interesting because you still never explain why you thought I saw someone else's argument against you — TogetherTurtle

because the only difference in your equally ridiculous arguments is that he used the word "unique" while you used the word "special". Another mystery solved.

He of course meant the experience of living, of seeing, feeling, hearing, touching, tasting. Have you ever heard of the term "I experienced ____". It's really the only way you can take that. If I'm wrong I would gladly take an alternate explanation, but I know you wouldn't, so I'll stop here. If anyone reads this far, this man is a lunatic. Give him no more attention, he only thrives on it. — TogetherTurtle

Listen to Mr. Fallacy talk about wanting attention. You may rest assured, I would more than happy with a little less attention from you. And how wonderfully philosophical of you to speak for others and to direct them how to respond to me. I am sure they appreciate that.

Dude, this ain't facebook.

The rest of my sentence (Life must be more than chemical and physical matter, as it ceases upon death event though all the substances remain) is what I based my speculations on, as there is no known scientific evidence regarding what allows life to continue. Life from nonliving matter has never been recreated in a lab. — Lone Wolf

I agree. And I think it is bad form to ask for proof when one knows no such proof is forthcoming or that the opposite is equally unprovable. Philosophy is not science. Every time a philosophical theory reaches a point where its claims are empirically provable, it ceases to be philosophy and becomes a form of science. But without philosophy, there is no avenue for entertaining those theories that eventually become empirically provable, i.e,. branches of science. It is anti-philosophical to apply scientific criteria to philosophical discussions. You made a philosophical claim supported by reason. Nothing more is required. Some people are uncomfortable dealing with that which can not be empirically proven true or false. Oh well.

To be frank, you should have more pride in being human. — TogetherTurtle

Seriously? Perhaps you should place your pride in who you are rather than what species you were born into. The former depends entirely upon your choices while the latter has absolutely nothing to do with anything you have ever done.

Now imagine a being x who is completely self-aware in every respect from the atomic realm to the macroscopic world we're familiar with. Such a being is what I call truly self-aware. — TheMadFool
I think this is problematical, as I think that 'complete self awareness' of that kind is a logical impossibility. So the hypothetical 'being X' is not something that could ever exist, which renders the entire OP rather pointless, in my opinion. So, nothing further to add, at this point. — Wayfarer

Perhaps you and the poster have a different understanding of imagine. It never occurred to me that imagination must be limited to the logically possible. Oh well.

I am going to bed now.

Everything has a state of yes, this is truth, and no, this is fallacy — TogetherTurtle

Is fallacy your word of the day? False and fallacy are not synonymous. In philosophical argument, a fallacy is generally considered a failure in reasoning that renders an argument unsound. On the other hand, false is an attribute of a philosophical premise and/or conclusion. I strongly recommend investment in a dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy is one of the best. A bit pricey. But it should last a life time.

And broaden your mind a bit. "Disagreeing with TogetherTurtle" is not on any list of fallacies I have seen. In it is philosophical courtesy to be able to identify an alleged fallacy in someone else's argument. And if can't identify it, then it is likely you do not know what you are talking about.

Statements having a binary truth/false value are "apophantic" and generally considered to have minimal meaningful content.

And if you think there is any philosophical consensus regarding your theory of truth, you would be wrong. Your "state" theory of truth is a new one. And what good is it? And what is the status of the claim the all unicorns have purple tails? Well according to you, we know it must be true or false, we just do not know which. What help is that? If you are going to have a theory of truth, it ought to useful.

Well, to start, I don't really know who you mean by the other guy. I guess someone else found the fallacy as well. — TogetherTurtle

Wrong.

You may rest assured that the others guy's mistakes are not as "unique" and "special" as yours.

How fallacious of me to expect people to actually make arguments in support of their claims.

When will I ever learn?

what does it say about the question of whether computers are conscious subjects of experience? Because I take that question to be central to the OP. — Wayfarer

I disagree for two reasons:

1. The original post posits self awareness as the issue rather than conscious[ness]. And I have no reason to presume the poster chose his terms carelessly. And though one could carelessly consider them synonymous, that would be a tough argument to make. All reasonable people would agree that my dog and I are both conscious beings. Yet I doubt all reasonable people would agree that my dog has a sense of self awareness. And if all beings who are conscious are not necessarily self aware, then conscious and self-awareness cannot be synonymous. So absent a reason to believe the original poster meant something other than what he said, it would be anti-philosophical to presume the central issue is other than self-awareness; and

2. It is where "human" stands on the spectrum of self-awareness relative to the computer that is the central question. As the poster clearly asks "Would we be closer to the computer or being x?" Again and with all due respect to the poster, it would be anti-philosophical to suggest a different question is "central to the OP."

……………………………………………………..? <---- HUMAN ----> ?

Rock --------------------------Computer---------------------------------------------------------------Being X

And in an attempt to advance the issue, I suggest that Human is closer to the Computer. However, I suspect that Human is unlikely to move significantly (if at all) closer to Being X but that the Computer certainly will move closer to Being X. If that is the case, then the deeper issue becomes whether Computer will move past Human on the spectrum of self awareness.

Further, self-awareness rather than consciousness strikes me as an interesting twist to this now age old debate. In order for there to be self-awareness, there must be awareness. If we call awareness "AL1" (Awareness Level1) and self awareness "AL2" (Awareness Level2) and awareness of self awareness "AL3" (Awareness Level3), are we not already at AL3? And at what AL(x) is Being X?

Finally and most important of all, is this simply a more grown up version of the "I know" game?

I know
I know you know
I know you know I know.

I am aware
I am self aware
I am aware that I am self aware

Because that is the way it feels every time contemporary programming achieves that which yesterday's learned skeptics said it will never achieve. If we ever had a working definition of "conscious" (which we do not) and coders were able to represent it, you can bet your bottom dollar we would promptly change the definition.

your 19 minutes is up. Going forward, I do believe it would be a bit more philosophical if you were to ask some questions regarding my understanding of something rather than presume my understanding is shallow.

Being is that upon the basis of which human being renders intelligible the always already existing world into which it is thrown. And that is my definition.

Many people - presumably including yourself - simply assume that it is obvious what the word 'being' refers to, and that computers and beings are pretty much the same kind of thing. — Wayfarer

Seriously, you are going to presume that I have a shallow understanding of being?

You are the one whose understanding of being was shallow to the point that you presumed that by being I meant human being.

If you want to give it another try, I will continue to wait here.

There's only one way known for humans to actually 'create another being', and that is by reproduction. — Wayfarer

Definition of being. 1 a : the quality or state of having existence.

Seriously, what am I, chopped liver.

and please define "experience".

I will wait here.