Philosophy and the like.

[Cealocanth]

I for one love to lay in bed and ponder the answers to questions that cannot be answered, but why make an argument with yourself when you've got the internet! I have created this thread so that the Playgrounders can discuss the answers to philosophical questions.

Feel free to post new questions and respond to them as you wish, If you know it's inappropriate, don't post it. I'll start it out.


I think, therefore I am.

This quote is from some Greecian philosopher who somehow got famous for this very simple line. Is he correct? Is it because you think it exsits does it?

[Sneak]

Every individual's world and existence is based on his own solipsistic perception, so yes, although I would put it more like, "I think I am, therefore I am."

Although this still limits the individual's existence to the universe as he perceives it.

If that makes any sense.

[arguskos]

Isn't that line from Descartes?

Also, he's right on the money, belief shapes everything we are and do. Too bad most folks don't seem to share this idea, at least, in my experience most people disagree.

[Lord Raziere]

yes, "I think, therefore I am" justifies your own existence but not everyone else's- the person you are talking to could easily be an illusion, and inanimate objects don't think, so do they truly exist?

I would change it to "I observe, therefore things are." because since your observe yourself, you exist and since you observe a rock falling, makes the rock exist as well, and the entire world exists as well because everyone in the world is observing it, therefore the world exists because we observe it, and I exist because I observe myself.

[Zevox]

Actually, that's a quote from French philosopher Rene Descartes. It comes from a thought experiment of his, asking basically what we can actually be certain we know. Since all of our sense are fallible and can be deceived, he reasoned, we ultimately cannot be completely certain of anything they tell us. So what are we left with if we eliminate everything we "know" because of our sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smelling? Our thoughts. Thus, all we can know for sure is that we think. And since we think, we therefore have evidence of our own existence. Hence, "I think, therefore I am."

Believe it or not, this is one of the few things I remember from a university class that was supposed to be about the concept of infinity. It turned out to be more of a mostly-math-based trivia course and largely a big waste of time...

Zevox

[Rauthiss]

Cogito ergo sum, or "I think, therefore I am" was actually by Descartes, who was actually french.

I find that in philosophical discussions, defining the argument itself is typically the smartest first step. We can argue solipsism all day, but it's rather pointless unless there is a point.

As for if I find it "correct"? That's a wholly separate issue. Cogito ergo sum can be interpreted in many ways. I know that I exist because I choose to exist, on some level. If one chooses to not exist, and follows through, then one does not exist. I tend to view it more as "I decide that I am, therefore I am".

[Nefarion Xid]

I believe the Cogito is Descartes' work. So, French, not Greek. It also doesn't have anything to do with external bodies.

Edit: Ninjaed. I am proud that so many people know at least that much about modern philosophy. Way to go Playgrounders.

[skywalker]

Isn't that line from Descartes?

Yes. French, not Greek.


yes, "I think, therefore I am" justifies your own existence but not everyone else's- the person you are talking to could easily be an illusion, and inanimate objects don't think, so do they truly exist?

I would change it to "I observe, therefore things are." because since your observe yourself, you exist and since you observe a rock falling, makes the rock exist as well, and the entire world exists as well because everyone in the world is observing it, therefore the world exists because we observe it, and I exist because I observe myself.

This is more accurate, but the second statement is not specifically a refinement of the first. The first is not a statement of thought being required for existence (or much of anything else). It is merely the first step from a position of doubting everything.

[Cealocanth]

thanks for the correction on the history. Not much of a famous person person if you know what I mean.

This is how I interpret it, The world is how we percieve it based on our senses. If we think we hear a bird and see a bird, we assume that it "is."
But if our friend doesn't hear the bird and doesn't see it, he doesn't think it "is." I have drawn the conclusion that it both "is" and "isn't" because each person interpret's it differently in their own mind. So it only "is" if we think it "is." I think I have continued my analogy in the spoiler.

This means that everone exsists within their own mind, as well as what they think exsists outside their mind still can only exsist as far as we can think it exsists within our own mind. This could mean that everyone lives within their own seperate universe, in which what exsists as far as they think is different from what somone else thinks exsists in their universe.

No one universe is the same because everyone has seperate opinions. like Einsteins theory about how the two people on the train mesure different times between the lightning strikes, they have now split into their own seperate universes because what exsists only exsists within their minds.

Now what happens when someone explains their ideas to someone else, like what I'm doing now? The different universes influence each other because human beings have the ability to preform logical thought. Human beings have the ability to "reach" into annother person's universe and change it by using his voice and hand guestures to influence what exsists within that universe based on what they think they percieve through their senses.

I hope I haven't just founded a new religon or something. Please avoid religous comments on my thought process. Isn't it amazing what you can piece together when you really think about it?

[Edit: Halfling in the Playground! Sweet! So long pixiedom!]
[PS: What does it really mean to be? Do you have any proof that things are besides your senses? Do you have any proof that your senses are? Do I have any proof that I can feel the wind on my face or that I can see the colors of the painting???]

[Ganurath]

I think that it's accurate, although I prefer the paraphrasing by Complete Arcane in regard to Illusionist philosophy:

"If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, then there is no tree."

Heck, Schroedinger's Cat is dependant on the accuracy of this idea.

[Lord Raziere]

how do you we already aren't in our worlds? colors themselves could be different, I could see a completely different red from your red and we would never know.

all we really know at this point is that when it comes to people, nothing is truly objective, all our perceptions are inherently subjective so we could argue all day about what we perceive and not get anywhere because we don't really have any idea if we perceive things the same way.

furthermore, take quantum physics- there things that happen only because we DON'T perceive and observe them, and change as soon as we try to observe them which kind of turns this discussion upon how we perceive things to exist on this head, don't you think?

[golentan]

thanks for the correction on the history. Not much of a famous person person if you know what I mean.

This is how I interpret it, The world is how we percieve it based on our senses. If we think we hear a bird and see a bird, we assume that it "is."
But if our friend doesn't hear the bird and doesn't see it, he doesn't think it "is." I have drawn the conclusion that it both "is" and "isn't" because each person interpret's it differently in their own mind. So it only "is" if we think it "is." I think I have continued my analogy in the spoiler.

This means that everone exsists within their own mind, as well as what they think exsists outside their mind still can only exsist as far as we can think it exsists within our own mind. This could mean that everyone lives within their own seperate universe, in which what exsists as far as they think is different from what somone else thinks exsists in their universe.

No one universe is the same because everyone has seperate opinions. like Einsteins theory about how the two people on the train mesure different times between the lightning strikes, they have now split into their own seperate universes because what exsists only exsists within their minds.

Now what happens when someone explains their ideas to someone else, like what I'm doing now? The different universes influence each other because human beings have the ability to preform logical thought. Human beings have the ability to "reach" into annother person's universe and change it by using his voice and hand guestures to influence what exsists within that universe based on what they think they percieve through their senses.

I hope I haven't just founded a new religon or something. Please avoid religous comments on my thought process. Isn't it amazing what you can piece together when you really think about it?

[Edit: Halfling in the Playground! Sweet! So long pixiedom!]
[PS: What does it really mean to be? Do you have any proof that things are besides your senses? Do you have any proof that your senses are? Do I have any proof that I can feel the wind on my face or that I can see the colors of the painting???]

That all doesn't follow at all.

Look, the statement Cogito Ergo Sum is simply stating that your ability to ponder your existence is a self referential proof of the existence of your mind.

Now, this doesn't prove the existence of other things necessarily. But neither does it disprove them. If there is an objectively correct reality, then the universe is independent of our perception of it. The lack of observation does not make something not so. While there are no ways to perceive except through sensory input, and it's quite possible for sensory input to be fooled, if we accept an objective universe that is irrelevant for all intents and purposes.

A far more interesting problem is the proof of an objective universe, or the disproof.

Also, ego much with the "Hope I didn't found a religion?"

[Semidi]

thanks for the correction on the history. Not much of a famous person person if you know what I mean.

This is how I interpret it, The world is how we percieve it based on our senses. If we think we hear a bird and see a bird, we assume that it "is."
But if our friend doesn't hear the bird and doesn't see it, he doesn't think it "is." I have drawn the conclusion that it both "is" and "isn't" because each person interpret's it differently in their own mind. So it only "is" if we think it "is." I think I have continued my analogy in the spoiler.

This means that everone exsists within their own mind, as well as what they think exsists outside their mind still can only exsist as far as we can think it exsists within our own mind. This could mean that everyone lives within their own seperate universe, in which what exsists as far as they think is different from what somone else thinks exsists in their universe.

No one universe is the same because everyone has seperate opinions. like Einsteins theory about how the two people on the train mesure different times between the lightning strikes, they have now split into their own seperate universes because what exsists only exsists within their minds.

Now what happens when someone explains their ideas to someone else, like what I'm doing now? The different universes influence each other because human beings have the ability to preform logical thought. Human beings have the ability to "reach" into annother person's universe and change it by using his voice and hand guestures to influence what exsists within that universe based on what they think they percieve through their senses.

I hope I haven't just founded a new religon or something. Please avoid religous comments on my thought process. Isn't it amazing what you can piece together when you really think about it?

[Edit: Halfling in the Playground! Sweet! So long pixiedom!]
[PS: What does it really mean to be? Do you have any proof that things are besides your senses? Do you have any proof that your senses are? Do I have any proof that I can feel the wind on my face or that I can see the colors of the painting???]

Congrats, you've come up with something vaguely similar to Idealism (Put as simply as possible--the only thing that exists is mind/spirit substance), except making even less sense than idealism.

Anyway, my biggest suggestion for you would be to actually read Descartes. He's fairly easy compared to most people. Meditations on First Philosophy is a good place to start. His Cogito argument is an incredible piece of philosophy, though incredibly problematic. However, his third meditation is just completely borked, such that I can't read it without laughing.

[llamamushroom]

Cogito ergo sum, or "I think, therefore I am" was actually by Descartes, who was actually french.

For some reason, I read that as "Descartes, who was usually French".

Anyway, I'm going to back up Zevox here, because that is exactly what I was taught in year 10/11 when I was studying epistemology.

And, as a retort to Cealocanth's PS-es: The first question is one of THE big ones, but the rest of them are simply answered with "no". They all rely on empirical evidence of the senses which can very easily be fooled. For instance, electronic stimulation of parts of the brain/nerves can make you feel a burning sensation in your arm when there is no fire. It is only a matter of the positioning/complexity of the stimulation to create illusory sensations or images. And that's not even starting on the phantom limbs amputees often experience, or hallucinations.

[Corlindale]

As others have said, all Descartes' argument can really support is precisely what it says - that there is an "I" that thinks (some have later disputed even the "I" part and argued it merely supports the existence of thoughts).

On an epistemic level, I tend to agree that we cannot really know more than that, for a very strict sense of "know". The Sceptic's argument is a strong one - we could easily imagine a scenario wherein our sensory experience was exactly the same as it appears to be now, but where the actual world we are in is vastly different (we could be in The Matrix - that's a more up to date example than Descartes' demon). I don't really accept Descartes' fancy solution of introducing God to revalidate everything after he's scepticised it away.

However, I still think there are good reasons to assume that other people exist, and that the world as it appears to us work in fairly consistent ways. We can therefore usefully speak of knowledge of the world as it appears to us, with us taken in a very broad sense, even if we have no way of knowing anything about the world as it actually exists on a very fundamental level. (this is a pretty much a ripoff of Immanuel Kant :smallsmile: )

[Trog]

I am, whether I think or not.

[golentan]

I am, whether I think or not.

Funny. I am not, whether or not I think.

[Thajocoth]

I think you're putting Descartes before the horse here...

If you exist, the universe must as well. If existence comes from thought, the universe must think as well. If the universe is alive, it's gotta eat... What do universes eat? Do you really want to try to figure out what universes eat?

[GallóglachMaxim]

I am, whether I think or not.

That's because you've become an ontological entity and other people are constantly thinking that you are.


I think you're putting Descartes before the horse here...

/Groan. Because someone had to.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

I think you're putting Descartes before the horse here...

Well done.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?

[thubby]

Well done.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?

is a problem dependent entirely on one's definition of sound. and games of definition are neither fun nor useful.



If you exist, the universe must as well. If existence comes from thought, the universe must think as well. If the universe is alive, it's gotta eat... What do universes eat? Do you really want to try to figure out what universes eat?
why does the universe have to exist? could it not simply be an illusion or hallucination?

[Player_Zero]

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?

Is perception existence? Is what I perceive the only form of existence anything has inherently, that is, my perception of it? It seems unlikey should be assume that we all have individual perception of affairs which seem to collaborate. But we can't make that assumption since although it may be that I just perceive it that way.

Then how do we define existence? What is a real thing? If it is to be done by parliament it would be what the majority perceive to exist, or rather how I individually perceive others perceive the existence of something, which is of course entirely based upon my own perception. As such we must define existence by personal perception even though it is often bias and we have no possible verification; there is no alternative.

In short, if no one saw it, or rather, if I personally didn't hear about it then it didn't make a sound. In point of fact, there may well have never been a tree there in the first place.

[averagejoe]

One of the things about Rene Descartes is he's pretty easy to make fun of. (http://cowbirdsinlove.com/546)

I mean, for some reason his most famous saying is, "Cogito ergo sum," or, "I think, therefore I do sums."

But maybe I'm just putting Descartes before...


I think you're putting Descartes before the horse here...

Ah, dang. So much for philosophy puns.


Heck, Schroedinger's Cat is dependant on the accuracy of this idea.

It really isn't. S's cat can be more accurately thought of as a metaphor to help understand something that's fundamentally outside of human experience than it is a statement that has any merit on its own. Also see below.


furthermore, take quantum physics- there things that happen only because we DON'T perceive and observe them, and change as soon as we try to observe them which kind of turns this discussion upon how we perceive things to exist on this head, don't you think?

No. On the quantum level, observation cannot happen without using forces so significant that they fundamentally upset the system. It's like... look, what if the only way you could study things is by shooting cannons at them and measuring how the cannonballs interacted with things. This would be fine for studying things like planets, because a planet isn't very affected by a cannon being fired at it. Try to study things like houses, though, and you need to take into account the fact that you're completely demolishing whatever you're studying; that in a fundamental way, you change things by observing them. How does one study an proton? You can shine light at it, just like we do everything else, but a photon has enough energy compared to a proton that when the two interact it throws the system seriously out of whack. So then, at best, you can get statistical probabilities about what the photon is doing.

Don't get me wrong, QM is weird, but it's not weird in the way most people think.


If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?

Sure. (http://www.therecordist.com/assets/sound/mp3_09/Wood_Tree_Fall.mp3)

[Eldan]

is a problem dependent entirely on one's definition of sound. and games of definition are neither fun nor useful.


why does the universe have to exist? could it not simply be an illusion or hallucination?

Perhaps you should replace "the universe" by "a universe". Of course we do not know if the universe we perceive actually exists.
The question then becomes: if I think, and therefore exist, do I exist in something? That something would then be the universe, or part of the universe.

[Trog]

Funny. I am not, whether or not I think.

I think your post alone disproves that.


That's because you've become an ontological entity and other people are constantly thinking that you are.
Well, not really what I was thinking but a good point I suppose.

My point is that since the idea of "I think therefore I am" shows my existence as a thinking being that my corpse would no longer function and think but I (in the physical sense) would still exist.

As I lay in the ground and decomposed over time it would be harder and harder to say where I began and where I ended as my body mass would get used for other things by the soil in which I lay. But then again you really are never the same person twice.

Take you at age 1 versus you now and consider all the extra body mass you have taken on... is that you? "Of course it is, how silly" you'd say. Which really goes to show that who we are is just a a construct of matter that exists whether we are in the proper configuration to be a thinking being or not.

We're like a house that you built out of Lego and then destroyed because you needed the pieces for something else. The pieces that formed the house are still there, in a box somewhere. The construct of the house, like your life, is a temporary physical condition. But if you think of yourself as the Lego themselves, those still are around long after the construct is gone.

Which perhaps raises the question of whether or not we are the construct and not the building material. Which, I would argue, is not true as, say, having your brain damaged would change who you are as a person. But then again growing older changes that too. The construct flows from the parts which constitute it. The parts are whether or not they are in a configuration which allows for self awareness and thinking.

[Asta Kask]

Descartes is sitting in a bar, having just finished his first glass of wine. The bartender looks at him and says:
"Want another one?"
"I think not!", says Descartes and promptly vanishes.

[Cealocanth]

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?

There are two ways one can see this, If everyone exsists whether they think or not, then there is a sound because sound is wavelengths in the air and the movement of the tree (the force) causes the movement of the air (the reaction) in which in turn causes sound whether to be heard by someone or not.

But how does one prove if there is sound at all if they don't observe the sound by hearing it? Based on the way I see Descarte's line (see above post) the universe as we know it is based directly off of what we think we observe. So if no one thinks that they hear it, it does not make a sound.

But the line does say "in a forest" that obviously means that there are other trees and plants and animals and such. Where is your proof that trees don't have senses that we just don't know about? Perhaps the trees do hear it, perhaps they can feel the movement of the air (they may even be able to feel light.) If that is true, then there is a sound.

Based on Shcrodinger, there both is and isn't a sound untill one hears it. But that means that there is only a sound in their universe untill they tell someone else.

Other things I don't have space to say:

ego much on the "I hope I didn't found a religon there" I didn't mean any harm to those who actually decided to read it. I just wanted to avoid any religous critisism because of what I pieced togethet at 10:00 at night.


If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, then it doesn't exsist.

Where is your proof that it does exsist? You weren't there to see the tree fall, or to hear it fall. If not a soul observed the tree falling, then it is as good as not exsisting because it doesn't influence anyone's perception of the universe. Wow, that sounded selfish. That theory needs work. a LOT of work.


That is very close to Idealism... In that case I didn't found a new religon. :smalltongue: You learn something new every day, today I learned how Idealists believe that things only exsist as far as we think we observe them yada yada yada...

[TSGames]

Actually, that's a quote from French philosopher Rene Descartes. It comes from a thought experiment of his, asking basically what we can actually be certain we know. Since all of our sense are fallible and can be deceived, he reasoned, we ultimately cannot be completely certain of anything they tell us. So what are we left with if we eliminate everything we "know" because of our sight, hearing, touch, taste, or smelling? Our thoughts. Thus, all we can know for sure is that we think. And since we think, we therefore have evidence of our own existence. Hence, "I think, therefore I am."

Having just recently read the Discourse on Method, this is perhaps the best summary of it that I've seen so far.

I, however, ascribe to the South Park viewpoint:
Kyle(while reading the Discourse on Method): "Dude, this book says I don't exist unless I think I do. But what if I don't?"[1]

What if I'm just an actor in your dream, and the thoughts in my head are not my own, but those of another entity?

Make no mistake, Des Cartes considered the question of discerning dreams from reality and concluded that we can tell each apart because the logic of reality is consistent, whereas the logic and occurrences of dreams are often contradictory and flawed. However, if I am merely an actor on a stage, my thoughts given to me by another outside, then how am I recognize the inconsistencies of reality, is it possible for a dream figment to recognize that he exists in a dream? To do so, wouldn't I need to have my own consciousness? The sum of my question boils down to this: If I think, therefore I am, then what if I don't think?

[1] http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/southpark/season4/southpark-401.htm

[Amiel]

Descartes originally wrote it as "Je pense donc je suis" (which could mean "I am thinking, therefore I exist") to ensure a wider audience was reached in his home country; he actually didn't use the famous "cogito ergo sum" until a lot later in 1644 when he penned the Principles of Philosophy, and only as part of the following "Ac proinde hæc cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima et certissima, quæ cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat."

It was originally written as ego cogito, ergo sum; it became popular and gained prominence in the English speaking world as cogito ergo sum.

The original philosophical statement was just cogito, which intended to put forward the proposition, "I am, I exist."

[Capt Spanner]

Well done.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?

Actually this is a koan. Koans are questions without an answer - what is the sound of one hand clapping? The "answer" is that you can't clap with one hand and therefore the question is absurd. The point is that by contemplating an absurd question you clear your mind of thought in preparation for meditation.


Re: I think therefore I am:

I argue that we should trust our senses.

We perceive the world through our senses. Let us assume that our senses are inherently unreliable. By this I mean that the real world has zero effect on what our perception - if your senses distort the world they are still in some way reliable in that it may be possible to untangle the distortions.

In that scenario we have no way of telling what the real world is like - we could live in The Matrix for all we know.

However, given that nothing around us would be real, there is no motivation to experience it, except for our entertainment. Anybody who tries to reasonably argue that this is the case is arguing with a figment of their imagination and is, therefore, insane. Being a reasonably person they would realise this and cease to engage with the world.

(Here is where the logic of the argument breaks down: the following is not logically rigorous:)

I therefore employ an argument similar to Pascal's Wager:

If our senses are fundamentally unreliable, it doesn't matter what I do because it has no bearing on anything anyway.

If our sense are reliable, and I'm wrong about it, by disengaging from the world I have failed the world my contribution to it, and failed myself a life a worth living.

Therefore I choose to believe that our senses are fundamentally reliable.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

But how does one prove if there is sound at all if they don't observe the sound by hearing it? Based on the way I see Descarte's line (see above post) the universe as we know it is based directly off of what we think we observe. So if no one thinks that they hear it, it does not make a sound.

Actually, Descartes would say the exact opposite. He distinctly claims that perception is unreliable, and that only deduction can achieve any progress towards understanding. If you hear a sound or see, for example, a bird, that is meaningless until your mind is able to comprehend what your senses "tell" you.

Or so he says.

He would also argue for the existence of a world outside his perception, as he mentions that what his senses perceive are involuntary on his part: he cannot control the input his senses take from his surroundings, meaning that there is indeed a world external to his own observations and deductions.

In short, the universe exists as a material object, but the individual conscious exists only due to the individual's ability to think rationally about existence, and to make sense of the world around us.


Based on Shcrodinger, there both is and isn't a sound untill one hears it. But that means that there is only a sound in their universe untill they tell someone else.

Not really. It would mean (combining the two in this fashion) that the existence of the sound is uncertain until someone is there to perceive. It's not both there and not there: it's presence is simply unknown.

As a philosophy and classics major, I have to ask a question of you, Cealocanth. How much philosophy have you actually read? It seems you're piecing together arguments without actually founding them in the works of the philosopher who you're speaking of, which is not a way to construct a logical, philosophical argument.

If you really want to have a drawn out philosophical discussion (which I'm totally for), you can't just leap into it...every major philosophical work begins at the most basic level to set a groundwork for the thoughts to follow, and I think something like that is needed here.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Actually this is a koan. Koans are questions without an answer - what is the sound of one hand clapping? The "answer" is that you can't clap with one hand and therefore the question is absurd.

I can, to the amazement of many. I'm doing it right now: *one-handed clap*

[valadil]

Actually this is a koan. Koans are questions without an answer - what is the sound of one hand clapping? The "answer" is that you can't clap with one hand and therefore the question is absurd. The point is that by contemplating an absurd question you clear your mind of thought in preparation for meditation.


I thought the purpose was to make you think about the problem? Nobody cares if a falling tree makes sound. What matters is the path your brain takes in getting there.



I therefore employ an argument similar to Pascal's Wager:

If our senses are fundamentally unreliable, it doesn't matter what I do because it has no bearing on anything anyway.

If our sense are reliable, and I'm wrong about it, by disengaging from the world I have failed the world my contribution to it, and failed myself a life a worth living.

Therefore I choose to believe that our senses are fundamentally reliable.

That's a much better explanation than my version. Basically I decided that a solipsistic view was pointless and there was no reason act otherwise.

[Sholos]

I'm more interested in logical paradoxes that people have come up with and whether or not they can be resolved. One that I've heard spouted occasionally is:

A Cretan says, "All Cretans are liars."

Of course, this is not a paradox, as all it means is that the specific speaker is currently lying. It doesn't follow from the contradiction that all Cretans tell the truth, just that not all Cretans are liars.

Any others that people don't understand or think are not actually contradictions?

[golentan]

I'm more interested in logical paradoxes that people have come up with and whether or not they can be resolved. One that I've heard spouted occasionally is:

A Cretan says, "All Cretans are liars."

Of course, this is not a paradox, as all it means is that the specific speaker is currently lying. It doesn't follow from the contradiction that all Cretans tell the truth, just that not all Cretans are liars.

Any others that people don't understand or think are not actually contradictions?

The next sentence is true.

The previous sentence is false.

I've never, ever been able to resolve that one in any manner whatsoever.

[Indon]

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?

If a tree falls in the forest, it does make a sound.

Allow me to demonstrate by extending the scenario.

God creates a universe that contains a world, a building, and a sound generating machine, turns the noise-making machine to the resonance frequency of the building, turns the machine on, then leaves the universe never to return.

The next being that percieves this universe will find that the building has been destroyed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_resonance) - because sound is a physical phenomenon wholly independent from observation.


Actually this is a koan. Koans are questions without an answer - what is the sound of one hand clapping? The "answer" is that you can't clap with one hand and therefore the question is absurd. The point is that by contemplating an absurd question you clear your mind of thought in preparation for meditation.
But the koan predates a modern understanding of sound that answers the question.

An appropriate koan for the forums could be, "How did the Monk solo the Tippyverse?"


A Cretan says, "All Cretans are liars."

Of course, this is not a paradox, as all it means is that the specific speaker is currently lying. It doesn't follow from the contradiction that all Cretans tell the truth, just that not all Cretans are liars.

He's not necessarily lying either. He may just be factually wrong, believing all cretans to be liars.

[Sholos]

He's not necessarily lying either. He may just be factually wrong, believing all cretans to be liars.

That is an angle I had not previously considered. Nice.

[averagejoe]

Actually this is a koan. Koans are questions without an answer - what is the sound of one hand clapping? The "answer" is that you can't clap with one hand and therefore the question is absurd. The point is that by contemplating an absurd question you clear your mind of thought in preparation for meditation.

More the idea is to get people to think correctly. Any worthwhile Zen teacher will, upon receiving an answer from a student, not declare the answer right or wrong, but he will question the student to see and correct the thought process that it took to get the answer.

[PirateMonk]

However, given that nothing around us would be real, there is no motivation to experience it, except for our entertainment. Anybody who tries to reasonably argue that this is the case is arguing with a figment of their imagination and is, therefore, insane. Being a reasonably person they would realise this and cease to engage with the world.

Assuming escaping the hallucination is impossible, trying to be entertained by it sounds much more reasonable than withdrawing from it. Even arguing with the figments is entirely rational if you enjoy it.

If you are entirely certain that the world you perceive is illusory, the correct reaction would be to maximize personal happiness without regard for the happiness of the hallucinated people. If you have any degree of doubt, it is probably best to err on the side of respecting the happiness of potential figments. This also produces a Pascaloid wager, but on how one should interact with the world, rather than whether one should at all.

[Servus]

There is no Santa.
But what do we refer to when we say "Santa"?
If there is a word there must be something.
So maybe one can say it's a concept.
Then maybe it's more appropriate to say "there are no Santas".

(Now I am ahead of a flame war on universals.)

[Eldan]

Don't forget the factor that in the context of your illusion, the figment people can still hurt you back: if, in your illusion, you commit crimes, you can still be thrown into illusionary prison.
My personal philosophy is that to act in a selfish manner intelligently, you have to respect others to quite some degree and cooperate.

[Cleverdan22]

There is no Santa.
But what do we refer to when we say "Santa"?
If there is a word there must be something.
So maybe one can say it's a concept.
Then maybe it's more appropriate to say "there are no Santas".

(Now I am ahead of a flame war on universals.)

Well, its not entirely correct to say that there is no Santa. Santa is indeed a character, rather than a concept. I would say that there is a Bugs Bunny.

Of course, Santa is really one figure that is universal, but called many different names. But I think saying "Santa" is correct as opposed to "Santas."

[Cealocanth]

...A Cretan says, "All Cretans are liars."...


I've never heard this one before. It really makes you think, not like the other one, but still, hmm...

it doesn't really work the way it's supposed to because you're talking about the opinions of one person. This person could be (and is) lying about his opinion on the situation. If that Cretan says "All Cretans are liars" he may have double standards with himself and other Cretans. I've seen plenty of African Americans that believe that all African Americans are bad but do not believe that they themselves are bad.

For this to work you have to assume that he is completely straight about his opinion. and believes that he is a liar like all other Cretans, see? It all falls down to the perceptions of one person again.

[Eldan]

He's lying: not all cretans are lying, he's the only one. :smalltongue:

[TSGames]

I therefore employ an argument similar to Pascal's Wager:

If our senses are fundamentally unreliable, it doesn't matter what I do because it has no bearing on anything anyway.

If our sense are reliable, and I'm wrong about it, by disengaging from the world I have failed the world my contribution to it, and failed myself a life a worth living.

Therefore I choose to believe that our senses are fundamentally reliable.
At first, this seemed like a strawman. Then I realized that a strawman implies an understanding of the opposing position in order to misrepresent it; I realized that was absent. So, it seems Des Cartes has been done a great injustice and, being dead, is not here to defend himself. Where I'm from we call that a low blow.

I feel there is a critical misrepresentation or lack of knowledge of Des Cartes in this proposed "psuedo Pascalian wager." Des Cartes by no means thought that any human could logically derive every single thing necessary to continued existence without any empirical examination. Des Cartes himself begins with "I think, therefore I am," proves a couple of nifty other things, and realizes that he is at the extent of what he is able to logically prove without empiricism.

Does Des Cartes then decide that his senses are lying, that he is not really hungry, so he should starve to death? Does he decide to become a shut-in since he can't actually confirm the existence of any other person? NO! He instead suggests that once absolute reason fails(that is 'pure' reason without empiricism) to discern what is true, that we should rely on probability through experience. I may not be able to prove that my eyes aren't deceiving me, but it seems probable that the monitor and keyboard I see in front of me are not illusions. I may not be able to prove that the city I live in exists, but it seems as though it probably does. Des Cartes was never an advocate of absolute reason to point of disregarding common sense or sheltering oneself from life.

The key argument of Des Cartes, is that what we can derive from 'pure' logic is all that we can know with absolute certainty, clarity, and distinctness. We may not be absolutely certain of everything else, but that doesn't justify, or even imply becoming a shut-in, or that our decisions don't impact an objective reality that probably does exist. We are still fully capable of being reasonably certain; if we could be absolutely certain of everything, we would be omniscient. To even imply that we should act only on knowledge that is absolutely certain; that is an argument that Des Cartes himself would denounce as foolish.

Sorry if it comes across a little hot, but Des Cartes has been played the fool, and that is one thing he certainly was not.

[Thursday]

heh, don't think I'm going to have much time to be in this one.
all you get from answers is more questions. (this is not a bad thing)

Still:


God creates a universe that contains a world, a building, and a sound generating machine, turns the noise-making machine to the resonance frequency of the building, turns the machine on, then leaves the universe never to return.

The next being that percieves this universe will find that the building has been destroyed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_resonance) - because sound is a physical phenomenon wholly independent from observation.


Eh? The next being that percieves this universe is, well, percieving this universe.

How is that independant of observation?



(There are also issues with independance if you have a being deliberately setting out to topple the building, but thats not the big problem here.)

Anyway, We effectively have no choice but to assume our senses are reliable, (while not forgetting the caveats) otherwise its very hard to do much, including most further philosophy.

[ApeofLight]

If a tree falls in a forest an no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

An age old question. Let's ask this instead.

If a tree falls in a medium that creates waves and no one is around to perceive those waves does that mean the waves do not exist? Or you could also say if a pebble falls into a lake and no one sees it does it make ripples in the lake?

The question to both of these is yes. Just because you do not see something(or hear it) when it happens doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Thursday]

^Define 'happen'

[ApeofLight]

May seem a little obvious but link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/happen).

Happen
to take place; come to pass; occur:

[Thajocoth]

I have answered one hand clapping. It's one of these three:

A sort of wind-woosh as you're simply moving your hand through the air, hitting nothing.

A very quieted clap of your 4 non-thumb fingers against your lower palm (barely louder than the wind-woosh).

A similar sound to a clap as you hit your hand against your other arm or leg or something (I usually do this if I'm holding something in one hand and wish to applaud. It's at least as loud as ordinary clapping.) Only one hand is clapping in this instance.

[Thursday]

May seem a little obvious but link (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/happen).

Happen
to take place; come to pass; occur:

Heh, fair enough! Unfair question, I meant in that specific context..

There's no way you can know that, is all I'm saying. We think we know, because every single time, ever, trees fall over and are observed they make a sound, so logically it follows that they always do this. But what if the act of observation changes the situation, by some unknown means (like someone above was saying about quantum Physics) we have no idea what an unobserved tree falling over does, and can't, ever.
I agree that thats pretty unlikely, so I'm sticking with cause and effect! but you can't Know that.

This is sort of Descares' point, we don't know much, really. but its too easy to be ridiculous about it, (like me here. probably)

Being a scientist feels pretty pointless sometimes.

[ApeofLight]

Yeah, yeah it does.

If only physics worked the same when you didn't observe it and when you did.

[golentan]

Yeah, yeah it does.

If only physics worked the same when you didn't observe it and when you did.

Quantum. It's always bloody quantum.

[Kneenibble]

quantum necessest ut orbis lucifer versetur?

tantum ut fluctus desinat.



If you don't speak Latin, that was really clever.

[Sholos]

It might not make a sound, but then you have to ask the definition of "observed", and what makes humans so special. I might also argue that if we know that the tree fell (as the question assumes), then it was indeed observed, because we cannot otherwise say with surety that it fell in the first place.

[llamamushroom]

More the idea is to get people to think correctly. Any worthwhile Zen teacher will, upon receiving an answer from a student, not declare the answer right or wrong, but he will question the student to see and correct the thought process that it took to get the answer.

Really? I thought that koans were specifically tailored questions not to have answers, in order to allow the meditator to realise the inherent ridiculousness of the universe and move a little closer to enlightenment. Answering one would be like responding to "it never rains, but it pours" with "a jug".

Then again, according to (cus, I've forgotten his name - some Japanese bloke), the answer to the koan "What is the nature of the Buddha?" is "three pounds of flax".

[Thursday]

It might not make a sound, but then you have to ask the definition of "observed", and what makes humans so special. I might also argue that if we know that the tree fell (as the question assumes), then it was indeed observed, because we cannot otherwise say with surety that it fell in the first place.

I believe the most common way that question is phrased starts with an 'if', so we don't know that it fell, because I agree it doesn't work if we do know.

Was avoiding the observer issue as it's going to be very hard not to venture into religion. Also, what level do you stop? If I never hear of a tree falling over, but you do, does it make a sound for me?
There's a better way of putting what I mean that escapes me right now. Sorry.

[Indon]

Eh? The next being that percieves this universe is, well, percieving this universe.

How is that independant of observation?
Because the sound has already done something. At no point is the sound percieved - only its' physical consequences.

Things happen without being percieved. We know this because we can later perceieve the consequences of those things.


I agree that thats pretty unlikely, so I'm sticking with cause and effect! but you can't Know that.
Okay, sure.

Is there a reason why absolutely anyone should ever care, at all, about this theoretical possibility?


It might not make a sound, but then you have to ask the definition of "observed", and what makes humans so special. I might also argue that if we know that the tree fell (as the question assumes), then it was indeed observed, because we cannot otherwise say with surety that it fell in the first place.

We're not necessarily special. The quantum definition of 'observation' is really complex, involving things I frankly don't really understand like time ripples and such.

Imagine if the collapse of every waveform caused a 'ripple' in reality that radiated outwards at the speed of light. When that 'ripple' hits you, the waveform collapses for you - you percieve the event.

[Thursday]

Because the sound has already done something. At no point is the sound percieved - only its' physical consequences.

Things happen without being percieved. We know this because we can later perceieve the consequences of those things.

That still counts! If you percieve something indirectly you have still percieved it. You therefore cause the question to have to resolve itself. There is no time limit.
The question should really be put.. If a tree falls over in a forest, and nothing, anywhere, ever, ever knows that it does, does it make a sound?



Okay, sure.

Is there a reason why absolutely anyone should ever care, at all, about this theoretical possibility?

Isn't that sort of thing the point of this thread?

On a practical, day to day level, No.

It is interesting in itself though. The parallel discussion in here about Descartes is dealing with this, as far as I have had time to read it anyway.

[Capt Spanner]

I feel there is a critical misrepresentation or lack of knowledge of Des Cartes in this proposed "psuedo Pascalian wager." Des Cartes by no means thought that any human could logically derive every single thing necessary to continued existence without any empirical examination. Des Cartes himself begins with "I think, therefore I am," proves a couple of nifty other things, and realizes that he is at the extent of what he is able to logically prove without empiricism.

<snip>

At no point did I mention Descartes, however.

We are, in fact, in agreement: to assume that I am am the only thing that exists, because I am the only thing I can be sure exists is, indeed, a gross misrepresentation, but was trying to justify my own belief that you are, indeed, a real person, as a few people already have.



Assuming escaping the hallucination is impossible, trying to be entertained by it sounds much more reasonable than withdrawing from it. Even arguing with the figments is entirely rational if you enjoy it.

If you are entirely certain that the world you perceive is illusory, the correct reaction would be to maximize personal happiness without regard for the happiness of the hallucinated people. If you have any degree of doubt, it is probably best to err on the side of respecting the happiness of potential figments. This also produces a Pascaloid wager, but on how one should interact with the world, rather than whether one should at all.

I think I'd find a wholly illusory world a little too nihilistic to really enjoy it: I'm not so much into the hedonism. As I said, it wasn't a logically rigorous choice and reeked of special pleading and appeal to emotion, but it's the best I've got right now.

[Indon]

That still counts! If you percieve something indirectly you have still percieved it. You therefore cause the question to have to resolve itself. There is no time limit.
I question the possibility of perception by induction. Induction is a logical capability - not a perceptive one.


The question should really be put.. If a tree falls over in a forest, and nothing, anywhere, ever, ever knows that it does, does it make a sound?
Induction as a logical capability says yes. We know that physical phenomena do things, and behave in all ways as if they never need to be percieved. We have no reason to believe they ever need to be percieved.


Isn't that sort of thing the point of this thread?

On a practical, day to day level, No.

It is interesting in itself though. The parallel discussion in here about Descartes is dealing with this, as far as I have had time to read it anyway.

No. The point is it is not interesting, and that by Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) we shouldn't be caring. We could also all be purple elephants riding on rocket-powered skateboards, but since there's no evidence and absolutely no bearing on reality as we know it if it's true or not, that's not interesting either.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

We could also all be purple elephants riding on rocket-powered skateboards

Yay! :smallsmile:

[Nefarion Xid]

I've long thought that the Falling Tree was sort of a joke poking fun at philosophy as a vocation. Even if a professor of philosophy were to weigh in on falling trees and explained that philosophers had come to an agreement about the problem ages ago... there would still be people who would argue until they're blue in the face that the professor was wrong (and that their opinion on the subject mattered).

Physicists never have that problem.

No layman ever leans over a physicist's shoulder, points a finger at his equation and says, "Nope, you're wrong... and here's what I think about the matter." Few people have a problem with giving a philosopher a piece of their mind. It's because philosophers do business in something that looks strangely like English. You don't go sticking your nose into the business of physicists because, unless you happen to be in a similar profession, you don't have any idea what all those numbers and Greek letters mean; and unless you are a physicist as well, you've no idea of their application either.

Lean over a philosopher's shoulder and sure enough you'll find him scribbling in English instead of eldritch symbols. And, being competent in English as you are, you'll say, "Ah ha! This I understand," forgetting for a moment all the years this philosopher spent learning to understand and apply those symbols he or she is working with.

All I'm saying is: proceed with caution. Philosophy looks deceptively easy. You wouldn't argue about ways to improve jet engines without having an intimate knowledge of how jet engines worked in the first place, would you?

Start small. Read. Stay close to the text. Don't go to the Book Club meeting if you haven't read the book!

If you want to talk about philosophy, pick an excerpt, have everyone read it, THEN discuss it. I don't mean to come of harsh, of course. I'm actually a little proud that Playgrounders want to talk about this at all. I just want people to go about it the right way.

(BTW, INB4 "Appeal to Authority")

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

All I'm saying is: proceed with caution. Philosophy looks deceptively easy. You wouldn't argue about ways to improve jet engines without having an intimate knowledge of how jet engines worked in the first place, would you?

Start small. Read. Stay close to the text. Don't go to the Book Club meeting if you haven't read the book!

If you want to talk about philosophy, pick an excerpt, have everyone read it, THEN discuss it. I don't mean to come of harsh, of course. I'm actually a little proud that Playgrounders want to talk about this at all. I just want people to go about it the right way.

(BTW, INB4 "Appeal to Authority")

+1 to Nefarion Xid (who I'm assuming is a fellow philosophy/classics major?)

[Nefarion Xid]

BA Phil and Psych with a focus on existential thought. Just trying to do the liberal arts proud. They served me well and I'll keep them close as I prepare for a career (and 5 more years of school) in the social sciences. A little Sarte goes a long way in therapy, ya know?

"The good news is: you have free will! The bad news is: you have free will... the horrible soul crushing burden of free will along with the knowledge that every thing you will ever do is ultimately futile and meaningless."


What piece do you suppose would be the best introduction for Philosophy in the Playground? I might go with Nicomachean Ethics, but that may just be because I could lecture on it in my sleep.

[Kaiser Omnik]

Good points by Nef. However I think we must be careful not to confuse philosphy as an art or a science (ok, I would'nt personally call it a science, but that's not the point), as taught in universities, with philosophy as an important human activity that empowers people and allows them to seek meaning and be critical of the world around them. The former activity rarely influences the latter, really; most individuals never have the opportunity to read more than a few texts of widely accepted philosophers. Most of their references are drawn from common knowledge. Philosophy has it's place in the university; but let's face it, what knowledge it produces rarely gets any attention outside of a small circle of authors.

What I'm getting at is this: reading about philosophy is a great way to educate oneself, but the important part of the exercice is to learn to analyze, question, critic - not to know about everything Aristotle or Plato have every written, for example. It's just that sometimes some philosophers may look down at you saying: "How can you not know about author x, or obscure concept y? I won't discuss further until you can reference author x or concept y!" Of course, that's a caricature...then again, I've met people exactly like that. Anyway, my point is that while you should have read a bit about Aristotle to discuss aristotlean metaphysics, referencing classical authors is not required to discuss philosophical topics as long as you know about methods of argumentation and the like (without some sort of method it will be hard to discuss at all).

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

What piece do you suppose would be the best introduction for Philosophy in the Playground? I might go with Nicomachean Ethics, but that may just be because I could lecture on it in my sleep.

Aristotle or Socrates in general, I think, as their works are much more free-standing than many later philosophers (Aquinas without a knowledge of biblical works, for example, is immensely difficult).

Meno, Nicomachean Ethics, Gorgias, The Republic (probably better saved for later), De Anima...those are all fairly accessible, and can bring a lot of discussion.

And Omnik? I'm not disputing your point, but one thing that these works and discussions about them help you to do is figure out how to think and analyze philosophical topics. It's not something you can really just jump into and expect to get something out of: hence why reading and discussing prior works is of utmost importance to being able to discuss and contemplate new ideas. I never remember line X from dialogue Y, but the fact that I understand the thought processes behind dialogue Y help me to discuss concept Z, no matter the circumstances around concept Z.

[TSGames]

What piece do you suppose would be the best introduction for Philosophy in the Playground? I might go with Nicomachean Ethics, but that may just be because I could lecture on it in my sleep.

I always thought that The Trial and Death of Socrates is a fantastic 'wetting of the tongue' for people with no experience in philosophy. It's short, easy to read, and lays out a good background for a substantial amount of Western philosophical thinking. In truth, I think it's very difficult to find philosophical texts for 'beginners,' but, then again, I've always been a fan of diving in head first. Rather, for those that lack experience with philosophy, I've always felt that philosophical fiction may be best to determine what schools of thought are appealing. In this way, at least for more modern philosophy, I'd recommend Thus Spake Zarathustra, or(if you have a lot of time on your hands) anything by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Finally, just for a good look into Existentialism and its modern beginnings, Des Cartes' Discourse on Method, and Blaise Pascal's The Pensées are both pretty easy to read, or if you only have a few minutes of book reading time, there is always Franz Kafka, or Albert Camus(The Stranger, being a particularly easy read).

For the laymen, I think it's important to start reading philosophy that you like, or at least find interesting, and then to expand outward from there while trying to keep everything in a historic context. By which I mean, when you do read outside of your comfort zone, it can be helpful to remember that many philosophers were contemporaries/students/ardently opposed to other philosophers, and remembering where and when a work was written, aside from making it easier to keep the philosophy straight, can often change its meaning.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

The Stranger could indeed be an interesting starting point. I hadn't considered that, which is strange (*pardon the pun*), as I love that book.

[Nefarion Xid]

There's a huge difference between being a scholar of philosophy and being able to think and speak philosophically. I'm certainly not saying "Go home and read First Meditations before you post in this thread!". More like... don't show up to the pitch with a hockey stick. If you're going to play the game, at least get the right equipment. No one's learning anything if two people are just talking past each other.

And let's not forget that philosophy used to encompass all the sciences. The whole point of philosophy is gain knowledge, right? Well, what happens when you and all your buddies get something all figured out and set in stone? You stop talking about it! No one entertains the notion of everything being made of water any more because we know better. Once we found the answer to a question, we made a new field. Philosophy got smaller and smaller as we learned more about our world. Now days, we're down to a handful of questions that constitute the five fields of post-modern philosophy. And honestly? We're not getting anywhere with them. But, it doesn't hurt to think about them because doing so turns out some pretty sharp people with great analytical powers and the ability to argue and write your pants off.

Those of us who've done things the hard way just want a little credit where credit's due. Do us the honor of doing philosophy the right way. If you don't know... ask questions! Far better to confess ignorance and ask for a little help (from someone with a degree no less) than to go off on wield tangents.

And remember, kids, no matter how how brilliant you think your idea is, there's a 99.9999% chance that either a well published dead guy or some stoner already beat you to it.

[Thursday]

A bit worried now that people think I'm taking this seriously.

Sorry.

[averagejoe]

Then again, according to (cus, I've forgotten his name - some Japanese bloke), the answer to the koan "What is the nature of the Buddha?" is "three pounds of flax".

Thinkers always seem to say very tangential things when posed that question. Some when posed that question will stick their pinkies out, symbolically imitating a famous speech given by the Buddha, in which he did nothing but hold a flower out to the crowd. My books on this sort of thing are buried in a box somewhere, and it's been quite awhile since I looked at them. I'll see if I can dig something up so I can say something intelligible on the matter. I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting further on this without a bit of a refresher, I'm afraid.


I'm certainly not saying "Go home and read First Meditations before you post in this thread!". More like... don't show up to the pitch with a hockey stick.

Wait, what? I'm not sure of the significant difference between these things, partially because I'm not sure what your hockey stick metaphor is supposed to be saying.

And, really, if there's something wrong with what people are saying, tell us what it is, don't talk about how we're fundamentally ill equipped. On the first page I went and corrected some incorrect notions about quantum mechanics. This brings them no closer to understanding QM-hell, I don't understand QM, and I've studied it a great deal longer and more meaningfully than most people ever will-but some sort of explaination brings the field closer to something that can be meaningfully used in dialogue and further from this weird magical idea that most lay-people seem to have of it. And for QM you need a good working knowledge of basic physical principles, statistics, and esoteric (to lay-people) mathematical systems and concepts. I have never before encountered a philosophical concept that is fundamentally un-graspable on some level to someone with little experience in the subject, only philosophers who are unwilling or unable to explain. Perhaps this just comes from my own inexperience, but if so, prove me wrong.

Philosophy is something everyone does, whether they know it or not; this makes me unsure about what to think when you speak of doing philosophy, "The right way." Even I, inexperienced as I am in these matters, can see the amateurishness and inexperience in the arguments of some of these people. But so what? People learn by going through this process; they don't learn so they can enter into it.


Physicists never have that problem.

A few people on this thread have already proved you wrong on that, and that's far from the only (anecdotal) evidence I have on the matter. People will weigh in on anything with authority. If there's one thing pretty much no one has any grasp on it's their own limitations.

[Thursday]

Seriously? This is the internet.. Trolling on irrelevant minutiae and going off on tangents is what people DO. Is it really necessary to crack a peanut with such a big hammer?

Why are you so convinced we all think we're authorities on the subject? This is how people talk on the internet! Do you really think we don't know its a pointless and trivial point? Maybe I can only be bothered to argue about one very specific point, fair enough -its not very eddifying, but how about coming in and politely discussing it?
(Ok yes I accept that particular tree point isn't really worthy of sustained interest, ok, bad example, but still most people would be more than happy to be corrected and discussed, rather than talked down to.)

I for one can assure you I know full well the extent of my ignorance, the great unwashed may not have studied Philosophy at University. (I did cover the Philosophy of Science, in so much as that counts,) but some of us have read more than just Sophie's World. Sure we don't know as much as you.. but we never claimed to..

Is there not a more constructive way to weigh in on this than dismissal and an air of superiority? This:

And remember, kids, no matter how how brilliant you think your idea is, there's a 99.9999% chance that either a well published dead guy or some stoner already beat you to it.
is a little bit insulting, to be honest.

EDIT: also, Apologies to OP, I'm not really intending to derail the thread. Lets move on from here.

[TSGames]

If there's one thing pretty much no one has any grasp on it's their own limitations.

And so we come full circle, for I am reminded of the opening line of The Discourse on Method (http://books.google.com/books?id=XnX3xsR_cvcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=discourse+on+method&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false).


Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for everyone thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already posses.

Des Cartes managed, on occasion, to have quite a way with words. ;)

[Indon]

Lean over a philosopher's shoulder and sure enough you'll find him scribbling in English instead of eldritch symbols. And, being competent in English as you are, you'll say, "Ah ha! This I understand," forgetting for a moment all the years this philosopher spent learning to understand and apply those symbols he or she is working with.

All I'm saying is: proceed with caution. Philosophy looks deceptively easy. You wouldn't argue about ways to improve jet engines without having an intimate knowledge of how jet engines worked in the first place, would you?
But sometimes, philosophers really are just full of it, to the point where the layman has an equal or superior position in terms of understanding.

Take the Chinese Room (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room). It's an attempted argument to absurdity at the possibility of strong AI through flawless emulation - but there's no indication that the principles of the Chinese Room's operation aren't the precise principles that the human mind itself abides by - that is to say, there's no reason to assume we aren't chinese rooms ourselves.

In this case, it was a philosopher trying to make a claim about something he really didn't understand, and he sounds silly as a result. You don't need to be a philosopher to know he sounds silly, either, though some degree of understanding about AI and neurology may be helpful in describing the precise flaws (and there's more than just that one) of the argument.


Seriously? This is the internet.. Trolling on irrelevant minutiae and going off on tangents is what people DO. Is it really necessary to crack a peanut with such a big hammer?

I should think that in a discussion, the default assumption is that all parties are genuinely interested in discussing interesting and valuable things, and that it's not time-wasting trolling. That's why trolling is bad - it's a breach of that unwritten protocol.

[TSGames]

Take the Chinese Room (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room).

That's an 'interesting' theory. I agree that there's more than few flaws with it, and, as someone who has had the fortune(?) to know a disproportionate number of sociopaths in my lifetime, I think I'd agree that we are all 'Chinese Rooms.'

As for the major debate raging right now... I don't think it's right, or that it in any way makes sense, to discriminate against the non-philosophically educated majority of posters in a decidedly non-philosophical message board. However, I still think there's some legitimacy to 'Don't go to the book meeting if you haven't read the book." Perhaps, it would be better put than one should be conservative in the posting of opinions on matters of which one knows little, rather than post authoritatively and risk rendering an incorrect representation of an idea, or proving oneself a fool. Ultimately, I think it boils down to 'restraint of tongue and pen.'

[Ichneumon]

Philosophy is as far as I know the only subject in which you can really be quite good without having any actual schooling in it.

Having said that, there are certain/many in depth discussions that you can't meaningfully contribute to when you don't have a basic understanding of the concepts and theories involved. However, I've always had the idea that philosophical "expertise" beyond just knowing what certain concepts mean was more of a "very useful bonus" than a requirement.

Others might disagree with me though.

[averagejoe]

And so we come full circle, for I am reminded of the opening line of The Discourse on Method (http://books.google.com/books?id=XnX3xsR_cvcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=discourse+on+method&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false).

Ah, so I'm exactly as brilliant as Rene Descarts, you said it not me, this can't possibly be me having a higher than warranted opinion of myself. :smalltongue:


Perhaps, it would be better put than one should be conservative in the posting of opinions on matters of which one knows little, rather than post authoritatively and risk rendering an incorrect representation of an idea, or proving oneself a fool. Ultimately, I think it boils down to 'restraint of tongue and pen.'

That's fair enough, and not something that really came to my mind. I'm afraid I've grown so used to people weighing in with authority on nothing that I just kind of assume that's what everyone's doing anyways, with a few exceptions. See any math thread on this forum for some spectacular examples. I dunno, I just see it as an example of how people are, so it's a difficult thing for me to despise.