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.

you and that other guy are arguing with yourselves. I have never denied that we are "unique." So stop thinking you need to persuade me that we are "unique." And now in addition to "unique" you are claiming that we are "special". Fine, we are "unique" and "special". We are "unique" and we are "special" and therefore. . . . . . . . . . . . WHAT? When are you going to fill in the therefore. . .? Your own examples are absurd. We are so good at art that we can paint a picture that looks almost as real as the machine we built to take pictures. We can go to concerts and listen to musicians play music that sounds almost as good as their latest studio album. Did it ever occur to you that we are so "unique" and "special" that we could actually create a being that is more "unique" and "special" than we are? We are "unique" and "special" and therefore WHAT??? Make a freaking argument!!

From what we know for sure, everything is either true or false

Seriously?

I would agree to a point. However, there are theories that are supplanted by what most people would agree are better theories. One example is the earth as the center of the solar system being supplanted by the sun as the center of the solar system. Though some had their own reasons for doggedly maintaining the former view, it was ultimately supplanted by the latter. I suspect Occam's razor was at play, i.e., the simplest explanation is more likely to be the correct explanation.

And though I get what you are driving at, I am not sure "prefer" is the right word. For example, most of the people I know who doggedly adhere to one or the other view of what they consider to be a binary option (such as realism or idealism) behave as if their view is more likely than not to be correct.

And for the most part, when one theory does supplant another, it is because the new theory either resolves or dissolves significant issues that the supplanted theory was unable to resolve or dissolve.

is that a yes or a no?

is there a presumption that there is such a thing as a non simulation? I remember way back in the day when one of my professors routinely stated "in theory, every analog process can be digitally replicated." Then one day a stated asked, "if in theory, every analog process can be digitally replicated, then what is the basis for presuming there is any such thing as an analog process?"

However and restricting myself to the confines of your post as posted, if we accept your premises, then not only is the simulation more probable in the future, is it not inevitable? and if you throw an additional premise of infinity, then by definition if it is inevitable, it has already happened and we are on an infinitely recurring loop?

seriously, don't flatter yourself.

I am done. I can be no clearer.

1. I am certain I clearly said I had no issue with whether we are unique. We are, after all, the only species that has ever intentionally killed others over a disagreement regarding the transubstantiation of a piece of bread. I suspect it does not get more unique than that. My point was and still is that uniqueness is not a synonym for superiority;

2. I made no claims inconsistent with known physics. I stated we want to claim that the universe is better because of our presence. Apparently you agree with me that such a claim is absurd.

3. I did not assume that people claimed computers will never be able to beat a Grandmaster at chess. I was there when sceptiks of AI made the claim. You can look it up. However, once Deep Blue did beat a Grandmaster, the claim then became computers will never be able to display emotions. That is not an assumption on my part. I was also there when AI skeptics made that claim. And now the new X is that computers will be unable to display awareness of self. That is not assumption on my part. Every time computers are able to do the X that the skeptics say they will never able to do, the skeptics come up with a new X. If you want to argue that X1 replaced by X2 replaced by X3 is not a pattern, then good luck with that. I have obviously failed in my attempt to persuade you to see the deeper issue regarding self awareness as pregnant with our need to treat uniqueness as a synonym for superiority. That failure is on me. I am done now.

that we are unique is not the issue. I am quite confident that there are many species that are unique in their own way. The deeper issue is to behave as if our "uniqueness" justified a normative superiority vis-à-vis other species. You are obviously aware of the now decades old claim that "unlike humans, computers can't X" where X is continually replaced once the computer is then programmed to do X. They cannot do X (beat a grandmaster at chess), they cannot do X (display emotions), and now they cannot do X (display self-awareness). We somehow want to claim that the universe is a better place for all because humans and only humans can do X while the truth appears more likely to be that the universe is a better place only for humans because humans and only humans can do X. Do you not see the pattern here as well the desperation to perceive an indifferent universe as somehow better off because of our presence? What in the world is that all about?

Self awareness is hard to define. It is easiest to describe it as "what we have and the beasts do not" so yes, by definition, we have self awareness. — TogetherTurtle

It rests upon the unstated presumption that you have something beasts do not. If all H's (Humans) have A's and only A's and all B's (Beasts) have A's and only A's, then the statement that SA = that which H's have but B's do not produces a null set. And even if you could establish some sort of qualitative and/or quantitative difference between the awareness Humans have and the awareness Beasts have, that difference would not necessarily be a difference in a degree of awareness regarding awareness, i.e., self-awareness. Couldn't such a difference simply be a difference in awareness of how or how much? For example, if all Humans were aware to some degree as the result of having visual sense of entities while all Beasts were aware to some degree as the result of having a sonic sense of entities, then under your formula the difference between visually sensing entities would be an awareness the Humans have and that the Beasts do not and would therefore be, under your formulation, self-awareness.

Seriously, I share your interest in the subject matter. But I maintain the deeper issue is why some seem so insistent upon reserving to or creating for human (and only human?) some sort of unique normative ontological priority. This apparent need to preserve, reserve, and/or create a significant normative specialness for human is quite fascinating.

you can never get me that information too soon. I have started Tractatus a couple of times and just could not get into it. Reading it in a structured way with others could make the difference. At least that is my hope.

seriously, are the proposed itemized sessions agreed upon and is there a proposed schedule for their timely completion? Please advise.

if the world is everything, then why does he keep going on and on? Just asking. :smile:

and if they say that my ancestors were just meaner and more war like, then that just means that my ancestors were meaner and more war like. Not every trophy is worthy of being won.

yes, whatever happened to the good old days when our politics were so serene?

I did see a post to the effect that white privilege does not mean your life has not been hard. Instead, it means that the color of your skin is not one of the reasons. And there is some truth to that.

I was browsing the Internet about Dewey, Nietzsche and nihilism and came across this, regarding the author's journey from Nietzsche to Dewey, which you might find interesting :http://www.johndeweysociety.org/dewey-studies/files/2018/02/4_DS_1.2.pdf — Ciceronianus the White

Good read.

:smile:

I do not believe in drugs for non-recreational purposes.

if the goal is to understand the nature of the real, then disagreement is indicative of not sharing the same goal, or is it? — Posty McPostface

I said philosophy was a discussion regarding the nature of the real. I did not define any "goals" to be achieved by such discussion and even if I did, your comment implies that such goals would be or are supposed to be the same for all those involved in the discussion. I already have an understanding of the real and I suspect that may be true of most people engaged in philosophical discussion. One of my primary goals is to articulate my understanding in hopes of gauging its accuracy and/or depths in terms of the responses of others engaged in the conversation. Whether others agree with me is not a significant matter per se. But if they articulate their disagreement in such a manner as to enable me to rethink and/or deepen my understanding, then their disagreements are quite welcome. Neither consensus nor agreement is the equivalent of truth. Coming to consensus could mean that we are all wrong.

I, on the other hand, have always defined philosophy as an ongoing discussion over the nature of the real. As such, I do not subscribe to philosophy as hermetically sealed off from the real. — Arne
So, then what's all the disagreement and misunderstanding about in philosophy if we're talking about the same thing, the real? — Posty McPostface

First and for what it is worth, I said I define philosophy as a discussion regarding the the nature of the real. In that sense, it is only the subject matter that is arguably the same thing. At no point did I say or reasonably imply that we would have the same understanding of any agreed upon subject. Even if someone understood my understanding, they would not be required to agree with it. And finally and most important of all, I never insisted my definition of philosophy is correct. I only insisted that it is mine. How do you define philosophy? :smile:

I meant that it has no meaning. Not to a tree, and not to a human. As I said, the age of a tree can be determined by examining its rings. But this is not their meaning. They have no meaning. They are a physical attribute of a tree, but you assign meaning to them. Why, and on what basis? — Pattern-chaser

I would agree that we have no concept of meaning that would attribute to the tree any meaning regarding the number of rings a tree has. But from that it does not follow that there are no beings for whom the rings have no meaning. In addition, I would also suggest the possibility that beings for whom the rings might have meaning may be deriving meaning from the rings rather than assigning meaning to the rings.

only for those who sleep. I am less conscious when I sleep. And seriously, how do you think anesthesiology is all about? I once had a client who was a nurse anesthetist and he assured me that not only does it admit of degrees, but that it is circularly spectral through and through.