What you say is debatable! Wittgenstein was specifically concerned about language in relation to philosophy. He, as far as I can tell, declared, with confidence I might add, that all philosophical issues were, get this, pseudo-problems - they were simply artifacts, so to speak, of language (linguistically-generated illusions) — Agent Smith

Witt wasn’t contrasting philosophy ( or reality) with language, as if language is always at risk of referring inaccurately or in a distorted fashion to real events and things. He didnt think this, because for him language is not a tool for referring to things. Language doesnt refer, it enacts realities, and the danger is that in our interactions with others , we can enact meanings in a way that leads to confusions about what we are doing

Language doesnt refer, it enacts realities, and the danger is that in our interactions with others , we can enact meanings in a way that leads to confusions about what we are doing. — Joshs

Well put. :up:

What often goes astray here is that not just anything we say works. There are restrictions on what can be sensibly said. If language enacts realities, it does so within certain strictures.

"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language."
— Ludwig Wittgenstein — Agent Smith

The gist of this sentence is misread. The battle is not against language, language is the means by which the battle is conducted--he uses what we say in particular occasions as a method to shed light on an issue.

Part of the human condition? Yeah, all roads lead to Rome. I'm sensing a pattern here; quasi-postmodernism or postmodernism proper or a variation of it. — Agent Smith

I'm not sure what those things are, or whether you want to say there is no distinction between a problem and a condition, but, if these things are debatable, I need a little more argument. From these comments, I can't seem to tell if you even understand what I am saying.

From a Wittgensteinian standpoint there's no essence to either illusions/simulations or reality that could aid us in telling them apart. — Agent Smith

Yes, Nick Bostrom. Transhumanist and firm believer that we have more to fear of AI than environmental, natural chaos, rapidly growing. Nick Bostrom is a guy who had severe mental problems. He declared to have been closed up in himself and had social problems and his escape in theoretical physics (which resulted in no considerable contributions) and AI did result in an attitude that made him think we live in a simulation and the "super" intelligences springing off from computer developments will be able to take over. What strange ideas, and he is even taken seriously! Anyone with a healthy brain can see the guy is wandering at the edge of psychosis and he probably has stepped over the borderline already long ago. There is an essential difference between illusion and reality though a clear-cut division between the two can't be given and illusion and reality certainly influence each other.

Being mad doesn't make him wrong.

Being mad doesn't make him wrong. — Banno

Wrong about what? That we live in a simulation? The universe is at most a material simulation of the eternal heavens with the eternal heavenly gods. But not a simulation of a material universe on another material substrate. I can guarantee you we don't live in a computer simulation. And he is taken seriously! For Christmas sake!

we don't live in a computer simulation. — Hillary

Oh, I agree. I was simply pointing out the fallacy of reasoning that "He is mad, hence he is wrong". Bad reasoning needs to be called out, less it become a habit.

:up:

We can't tell the difference between reality and illusion. — Agent Smith

Hyperreality...

Maybe you should read some Baudrillard?

Oh, I agree. I was simply pointing out the fallacy of reasoning that "He is mad, hence he is wrong". Bad reasoning needs to be called out, less it become a habit. — Banno

He's psychotic. During psychosis you think your illusion is real. Wrongly.

That's a very ordinary response, for very many reasons. Yawn.

Yes. You mean that I was right when I thought water came from exhaust pipes of cars? That there were dead bodies beneath the floor playing with ping-pong balls? Luckily there were people holding me back when I tried to suck the exhaust pipes! Are there people telling our friend Nick that he is wrong? Simulated reality and super intelligences... Wrapped up in quasi intelligent package. Yeah... of course...

Your argument seems to be "the world is not a simulation because Bostrom is mad".

Have you a valid contribution to make?

Your argument seems to be "the world is not a simulation because Bostrom is mad".

Have you a valid contribution to make? — Banno

That is not my argument. I think he's mad to believe that and advocate it in all seriousness. That's all.

I think he's mad to believe that and advocate it in all seriousness. That's all. — Hillary

But that's the reverse of what you claimed above; your post was that he is mad, and that we should therefore dismiss his ideas: " What strange ideas, and he is even taken seriously! Anyone with a healthy brain can see the guy is wandering at the edge of psychosis and he probably has stepped over the borderline already long ago".

We could divert the thread into a discussion of the normative use of expressions such as "mad", "psychosis", and "healthy"...?

But that's the reverse of what you claimed above; your post was that he is mad, and that we should therefore dismiss his ideas: " What strange ideas, and he is even taken seriously! Anyone with a healthy brain can see the guy is wandering at the edge of psychosis and he probably has stepped over the borderline already long ago". — Banno

Yes. I said one can easily see he's in a state of psychosis, induced by his social difficulties. But I didn’t say that because of that he's wrong. I didn’t say that because he's mad, he's wrong. I'm quite mad myself, but I'm not wrong. If you have that impression I wrote that, then that's my writing capacities failing.

Language doesnt refer, it enacts realities, and the danger is that in our interactions with others , we can enact meanings in a way that leads to confusions about what we are doing — Joshs

Meaning that we do or say things we don't mean?

Hyperreality...

Maybe you should read some Baudrillard? — Christoffer

Muchas gracias señor/señorita for the suggestion.

Would you like to discuss hyperreality? I've come across the idea in connection with the use of psychedelics. It's been described by people who were tripping as "realer than real". That makes it possible that this world we experience as normal people not under the influence of mind-bending drugs is a simulation/illusion; in a sense, with mind-altering drugs, we wake up and catch a glimpse of the real world!

Fascinating, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, Nick Bostrom. Transhumanist and firm believer that we have more to fear of AI than environmental, natural chaos, rapidly growing. Nick Bostrom is a guy who had severe mental problems. He declared to have been closed up in himself and had social problems and his escape in theoretical physics (which resulted in no considerable contributions) and AI did result in an attitude that made him think we live in a simulation and the "super" intelligences springing off from computer developments will be able to take over. What strange ideas, and he is even taken seriously! Anyone with a healthy brain can see the guy is wandering at the edge of psychosis and he probably has stepped over the borderline already long ago. There is an essential difference between illusion and reality though a clear-cut division between the two can't be given and illusion and reality certainly influence each other. — Hillary

Most intriguing!

There's a thin line between genius and insanity. I have erased that line. — Oscar Levant

Psychosis, in psychiatry, is defined as the inabilty to distinguish the real from the unreal! So, you're on the right track, mon ami!

Delusions, in psychiatry, are defined as the inabilty to distinguish the real from the unreal! So, you're on the right track, mon ami! — Agent Smith

Yes, my friend! But the real genius is able to draw the line again after returning from the madhouse.

Well, I must confess that my understanding of Wittgenstein is wanting in a lot of ways. My instincts, however, inform me that he's not entirely correct about the relationship between language and philosophy.

If we do nothing more than just extend his argument, semantics becomes irrelevant (it drops out of consideration) and all we're left with is syntax. I don't how I can even say this without shooting myself in the foot but that's how my brain understands Wittgenstein. We're basically like computers - all syntax, no semantics.

Thanks a lot for the response! Do cut me some slack here.

Witt wasn’t contrasting philosophy ( or reality) with language, as if language is always at risk of referring inaccurately or in a distorted fashion to real events and things. He didnt think this, because for him language is not a tool for referring to things. Language doesnt refer, it enacts realities, and the danger is that in our interactions with others , we can enact meanings in a way that leads to confusions about what we are doing — Joshs

:ok: I would've preferred Wittgenstein's thesis to be exactly how I interpreted it in my previous post. That would've been awesome in my humble opinion. Imagine if language were creating illusions! Fascinating, oui?

Imagine if language were creating illusions! — Agent Smith

...such as property, money, government, credit...?

...such as property, money, government, credit...? — Banno

Are these illusions illusions? How?

Yes, my friend! But the real genius is able to draw the line again after returning from the madhouse. — Hillary

:ok:

See, for instance,

In Searle's terms, Institutional Facts are hallucinations — RussellA

We can't tell the difference between reality and illusion. — Agent Smith

On the contrary, I think we can (with this rule-of-thumb): where "the difference" is ambiguous (or vague), we encounter "reality"; on the other hand, where it is clear, explicit, definite, we perceive "illusion" – just like "the difference" between waking and dreaming, during the latter we don't get tired and cannot fall asleep (as if we're "more awake" than awake). Also a problem with the "Simulation Hypothesis" is the (conspicuously) hidden assumption of 'ontological (substance) dualism' whereby it makes sense to pose the question which can be answwered, if only in principle, one way or another; otherwise, absent this assumption, the philosopher (e.g. Nick Bostrom) is also a simulation and therefore the "hypothesis" makes no sense, as :strong: 'Conan the Barbarian' points out .

.such as property, money, government, credit...?
— Banno

Are these illusions illusions? How? — Agent Smith

Good question. Is the illusion an illusion? I encounter this kind of self-reference a lot while crawling through philosophical discourse. The meta questions. Data about data or physica about physica. The truth about the truth. Wasn't it Kierkegaard who said that the ruling of the tyrant is over when they die, while the martyr's ruling then begins? Anyhow, are money and property illusions? To the poor, yes, and generally they should avoid illusions that more money and property is heading their way. But what about the concept of money and property? Are they illusions? No, of course not. A Zippo cigarette lighter can be as much your property as the brain in your skull. It's a real property of the lighter. And with money you can buy fuel for it.

He didnt think this, because for him language is not a tool for referring to things. Language doesnt refer, it enacts realities, — Joshs

Nice - what would be a good example of this?