Can someone explain this to me?

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1587
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Can someone explain this to me?

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:16 am

Why is there a picture of a transsexual, alien joker from outerspace, but in his/her head a picture of the guy from Need For Speed?

Is the transsexual Joker alien from outerspace imagining he is a man from Need for Speed? Or is the transsexual Joker from outerspace, actually the brain in vat being experimented by the man? If so then why is Abe lincoln behind these brains?

Can someone explain this article to me? What the hell is this I don't even.
https://www.quora.com/What-would-consti ... -conscious

Londoner
Posts: 791
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Can someone explain this to me?

Post by Londoner » Tue Jan 23, 2018 12:03 pm

You are unlucky in that you have picked a silly illustration and explanation of the subject.

The problem is that the same image is used to discuss two different philosophical questions. Most go for that of skepticism. How can we know that our perceptions correspond to an external world? In other words, how do you know your life isn't all a dream? That you are not in the Matrix? etc.

There is no way out of this. For example, we might argue that other people share our perceptions. But then the reply is that maybe the other people are also deluded - or that there are no other people, that the existence of other people is also a delusion and so on.

As I say, people like this because it reminds them of science-fiction.

But this particular example, the 'brain in a vat', was used to argue a more subtle point about 'truth theory', that is the way language works. Without going into detail, the philosopher (Hilary Putnam) argues that the assertion; 'we are brains in a vat' is self-contradictory - as a concept.

If you really want it explained then there is no substitute for carefully reading the article, perhaps with the help of intelligent commentaries. But it is hard work until you get used to it. I remember that when I started on philosophy I would read these things, making sure I understood the sense of every sentence, yet when I had finished I had no idea what they were talking about.

http://ieas.unideb.hu/admin/file_2908.pdf

focusinc
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:28 pm

Re: Can someone explain this to me?

Post by focusinc » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:44 pm

'There is no way out of this'

Problem with relativism or subjectivism is that you don't get to have an opinion on the objective world by the mere fact that you start with a relative philosophy. The whole point of reasoning is that we can point to something, as a human, and say, 'That's true'. The way out is changing your philosophy itself. If I start off with 'everything is me' then I'll always end up with that. That's why pantheism is lame.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Can someone explain this to me?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:36 am

focusinc wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:44 pm
'There is no way out of this'

Problem with relativism or subjectivism is that you don't get to have an opinion on the objective world by the mere fact that you start with a relative philosophy. The whole point of reasoning is that we can point to something, as a human, and say, 'That's true'. The way out is changing your philosophy itself. If I start off with 'everything is me' then I'll always end up with that. That's why pantheism is lame.
Add the fact that relativistic morality, must in itself be a constant, thereby either contradicting itself or laying the foundations for further moral constants.

focusinc
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:28 pm

Re: Can someone explain this to me?

Post by focusinc » Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:56 pm

Add the fact that relativistic morality, must in itself be a constant, thereby either contradicting itself or laying the foundations for further moral constants.
What do you mean relativistic morality must in itself be a constant? Is the person constant or the morality itself constant?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Can someone explain this to me?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:03 am

focusinc wrote:
Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:56 pm
Add the fact that relativistic morality, must in itself be a constant, thereby either contradicting itself or laying the foundations for further moral constants.
What do you mean relativistic morality must in itself be a constant? Is the person constant or the morality itself constant?
If all morality is relative to a certain point (either myself, my environment, genetics, etc.) either that point is the constant or the mixing of points, as in a variety of factors in itself is a constant. To elaborate my second point let us look at variable "x". Variable "x" may be a variety of things, however that variable as "x" is constant considering "x" exists relative to "w" and "y".

In a second respect is the variable is always changing what we understand is that if it does not change it ceases to be a variable...it becomes a constant. However if it does continue to change, it remains "constant in change" as the change is the thing that defines it...this in itself does not change.

That fact that relativistic morality is in a continual state of change observes is dependent upon that change as the thing which defines it. Without change the moral system ceases to exist. In this respect it is a constant.

It may be implied that moral relativity is statement of "change according to your circumstances" If "a" changes to "y" relative to "z", but again changes to "b" when relative to "x" the moral system may change, but when "a" is relative to "z" it will always be "y". In these respects it is a constant.

Scenarios may change, but the appropriate action for that scenario does not. In these respects the variable always leads to a constant. If I live alone in a cave my moral conditions will always be "y". However if the environment changes from a cave to a city, my moral conditions will always be "z". Variables always lead to constants much in the same manner x + y = z may be conducive to change, but when the variables equal 2=3=5 or 4+7=11 these truths in themselves are constant.

Relativisitic morality is strictly a morality based on steady change, which the change still required constants to be grounded in.

Londoner
Posts: 791
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Can someone explain this to me?

Post by Londoner » Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:56 am

But for Trixie's benefit, we should say that the 'Brain in a Vat' idea is nothing to do with relative morality.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Can someone explain this to me?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:03 am

Londoner wrote:
Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:56 am
But for Trixie's benefit, we should say that the 'Brain in a Vat' idea is nothing to do with relative morality.
Trixie rips everything apart, including himself, and calls it "wisdom". The "brain in a vat" is just a weaker example of this.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest