Experience Machine

2016-02-04 at 12:30 AM UTC

#21

Zanick motherfucker [my p.a. supernal goa]

I think the whole point is to have both. We want to live in the mundane and access the extraordinary through technology. It's vicarious and within our control--we can adjust and abort as needed for our circumstances, and that makes it a safe way to explore possibilities that might not be immediately available.

2016-02-04 at 1:40 AM UTC

#22

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

If they have the same outcome and you don't care how you arrive at it, then why did you choose the simulation over reality?

I think the whole point is to have both. We want to live in the mundane and access the extraordinary through technology. It's vicarious and within our control–we can adjust and abort as needed for our circumstances, and that makes it a safe way to explore possibilities that might not be immediately available.

I touched upon this. OP is basically discussing drugs.

2016-02-04 at 3:11 AM UTC

#23

Lanny Bird of Courage

You're right. I was simplifying for, well, the sake of simplicity. A more accurate way to say it would be that all knowledge is based upon cogito ergo sum. However, I don't know what you're talking about it not being undisputed; there is no philosophical argument, at least that I am aware of, that disputes Descartes' assertion that it is the one core fact from which we can derive knowledge. You'll have to be more specific with what you believe Kant said on the subject.

So all empiricists, by definition, don't think we need cogito ergo sum to have knowledge about the world. They all posit other means by which we can derive knowledge from ideas (objects of consciousness, or "experiences").

Kant is not an empiricist of course, but his transcendental arguments, if we accept them, give us knowledge that doesn't require Descartes' reasoning. Mind you, if we accept Kant's arguments for things like unity or plurality we'd seem to have no grounds to reject Descartes' cogito, but since there's a more tangible relationship to the external world Kant would argue we have a far more direct path from his transcendentals to the external world than by Descartes' proof of God followed by an argument for why God wouldn't deceive us (i.e. the meditations no one reads because they suuuuuuckkkkk).

In light of both empiricists and other rationalists arguments for a basis of knowledge that don't tread through Descartes' territory I think calling his cogito the "one core fact from which we can derive knowledge" doesn't pan out.

2016-02-04 at 5:53 AM UTC

#24

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

So all empiricists, by definition, don't think we need cogito ergo sum to have knowledge about the world. They all posit other means by which we can derive knowledge from ideas (objects of consciousness, or "experiences").

I believe you have are mistaken regarding the nature of Descartes' rationalism, what empiricism claims regarding knowledge, and where Kant stood on the issue.

Empiricism claims only that knowledge cannot be gained without experience. This is true, but it neither contradicts nor does away with the need for cogito. In a nutshell, the empiricist "dispute" is that the ability to arrive to cogito in the first place is shaped and made possible by experience, and that we get our knowledge and ability to get to that point before we get to it. As Locke said, upon birth, the mind is a tabula rasa, and it is furnished with information and our ability to reason, by experience. This does not remove the validity of cogito though, which at its core is the claim that there is only one feature of existence that we cannot doubt (or rather do away with) if we apply pure reason, and that is the fact that we are thinking.

Empiricism does not take issue with this, because for all you know, your senses themselves could be being ~~spooked by Spagett!~~ tricked by the evil Demon, we could be a brain in a vat and so forth. It is the basis of modern philosophy, and almost no philosopher that I'm aware of takes issue with that core idea. What empiricism does take issue with is what Descartes said further about the derivation of "knowledge" (primarily mathematics) from "innate ideas", for as stated above, these ideas, they argue, are themselves formed from the information we have received from our sense. It is silly to say, for example, that we are simply born with the logical capacity to internally produce mathematical concepts, because "god" just gifted them to us, so to speak.

Kant's work with regards to this was to try to reconcile rationalism and empiricism. Kant specifically accepts that the mind and it's abilities to reason fundamentally still spring from cogito, and still claims that the mind was the center of our knowledge, and the "impressions" from its interfacing with the world are how we gain a "semblance" of knowledge, much like how we can know the silhouette of an object by its shadow. But to account for both our senses and the fact that we are receiving this data, to be interpreted by the mind, we must accept (still based on our ability to think, however) that there must be a mind, some sort of external world in the first place within which our mind must reside and from which it will receive these impressions (e.g. even if we are a brain in a vat, the vat must exist in some form, and be somehow within an external world or space or so on, unless you're willing to argue that the mind itself internally generates these impressions, which I don't think anyone does), and that there must be some sort of source for this external world that must exist outside of our brain (Kant's conceptual "god'), because otherwise we run again into the contradiction that cogito raises to base itself upon.

As such, these are all extrusions of the idea that all perception and knowledge must begin from the raw fact that we cannot doubt that we are thinking.

Footnote: lanny, I'm not being allowed to access my PMs or make threads (which is why I'm not posting this in the Help forum). I receive this message:

2016-02-04 at 6:39 AM UTC

#25

Nevs Yung Blood

The machine may already exist.

2016-02-04 at 7:25 AM UTC

#26

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

The machine may already exist.

It's called drugs.

2016-02-04 at 8:20 AM UTC

#27

Sen. Marco Rubio Yung Blood

I've said it again and again--drug use is just one of many forces chipping away at the moral foundation of common American, God-given values. When I am elected POTUS in the general election later this year, you won't have to worry about experience simulations because I promise to introduce legislation that will forever silence advocacy for vice in this once-great nation.

2016-02-05 at 6:40 AM UTC

#28

Lanny Bird of Courage

Empiricism claims only that knowledge cannot be gained without experience. This is true, but it neither contradicts nor does away with the need for cogito. In a nutshell, the empiricist "dispute" is that the ability to arrive to cogito in the first place is shaped and made possible by experience, and that we get our knowledge and ability to get to that point before we get to it. As Locke said, upon birth, the mind is a tabula rasa, and it is furnished with information and our ability to reason, by experience. This does not remove the validity of cogito though, which at its core is the claim that there is only one feature of existence that we cannot doubt (or rather do away with) if we apply pure reason, and that is the fact that we are thinking.

Well I think that would rule out Descartes cogito ergo sum as the "one core fact from which we can derive knowledge" if we need different knowledge (the non-innate ability to reason) to arrive at it (plus, arguably, some background information like "I'm thinking" and "doubting requires thinking") or if we can have knowledge that doesn't need Descartes' argument in its support (i.e. knowledge about the world gained from experience).

Empiricism does not take issue with this, because for all you know, your senses themselves could be being ~~spooked by Spagett!~~ tricked by the evil Demon, we could be a brain in a vat and so forth. It is the basis of modern philosophy, and almost no philosopher that I'm aware of takes issue with that core idea. What empiricism does take issue with is what Descartes said further about the derivation of "knowledge" (primarily mathematics) from "innate ideas", for as stated above, these ideas, they argue, are themselves formed from the information we have received from our sense. It is silly to say, for example, that we are simply born with the logical capacity to internally produce mathematical concepts, because "god" just gifted them to us, so to speak.

Sure, but I never said cogito ergo sum was controversial, but its status as a necessary foundation for all other knowledge is.

Footnote: lanny, I'm not being allowed to access my PMs or make threads (which is why I'm not posting this in the Help forum). I receive this message:

Ah, sorry about that. Does it work now?

2016-02-05 at 8:13 AM UTC

#29

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

Well I think that would rule out Descartes cogito ergo sum as the "one core fact from which we can derive knowledge" if we need different knowledge (the non-innate ability to reason) to arrive at it (plus, arguably, some background information like "I'm thinking" and "doubting requires thinking") or if we can have knowledge that doesn't need Descartes' argument in its support (i.e. knowledge about the world gained from experience).

The important distinction to make is the difference between knowledge and operative "capacity". Knowledge as Descartes refers to it is absolute certainty. The most basic fact, which we can be sure no demon is messing with so to speak, is that something must be doing the thinking and cannot be conceived without. The analogy he gives in Principia Philosophiae is to the mason's tools; a mason can carve stone with his tools without understanding the mechanics of the tools, but he can determine those mechanics by using the tools, and surely the operation and function of the tools is based upon those mechanics, with or without his ability to discern it at first.

He argues that all else can be doubted except cogito. While he was not really around to defend himself from critics like Hume and onwards, you can defend cogito for him by looking at his work; the response would be that we cannot gain knowledge without first arriving at his base fact. We can gain some indications of the world (to use Kant's terms, impressions) but it is not knowledge until you have based it off the one immutable fact.

Sure, but I never said cogito ergo sum was controversial, but its status as a necessary foundation for all other knowledge is.

I would disagree with that. I can't think of a single mainstream philosopher that would say that the theory of knowledge does not require it as a foundation upon which to base and judge our perception of the world.

Ah, sorry about that. Does it work now?

Sure does. Thanks. It would be interesting to know what was causing that.

2016-02-05 at 9 AM UTC

#30

Lanny Bird of Courage

The important distinction to make is the difference between knowledge and operative "capacity". Knowledge as Descartes refers to it is absolute certainty. The most basic fact, which we can be sure no demon is messing with so to speak, is that something must be doing the thinking and cannot be conceived without. The analogy he gives in Principia Philosophiae is to the mason's tools; a mason can carve stone with his tools without understanding the mechanics of the tools, but he can determine those mechanics by using the tools, and surely the operation and function of the tools is based upon those mechanics, with or without his ability to discern it at first.

There's a whole range of philosophers who reject "knowledge" as only that which Descartes considers to have sufficient criteria to be undoubtable. Pragmatists are one obvious example, Descartes kinda handwaves mathematical truths as being unknowable a priori but I think possibly a majority of philosophers would disagree, we really can know mathematical truths with whatever level of confidence we know we exist. And of course most philosophers think his proof of god and reliable sensory information falls through so in so far as one thinks knowledge exists at all one seems committed to the idea that cogito ergo sum is not foundational to all knowledge.

I would disagree with that. I can't think of a single mainstream philosopher that would say that the theory of knowledge does not require it as a foundation upon which to base and judge our perception of the world.

So again, see pragmatists. Positivists would generally reject the idea that knowledge or meaning fails to exist without an argument stemming from cogito ergo sum. And almost no one uses the term "knowledge" to mean "that which is an immediate logical contradiction to doubt".

2016-02-05 at 3:21 PM UTC

#31

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

There's a whole range of philosophers who reject "knowledge" as only that which Descartes considers to have sufficient criteria to be undoubtable. Pragmatists are one obvious example, Descartes kinda handwaves mathematical truths as being unknowable a priori but I think possibly a majority of philosophers would disagree, we really can know mathematical truths with whatever level of confidence we know we exist. And of course most philosophers think his proof of god and reliable sensory information falls through so in so far as one thinks knowledge exists at all one seems committed to the idea that cogito ergo sum is not foundational to all knowledge.

So again, see pragmatists. Positivists would generally reject the idea that knowledge or meaning fails to exist without an argument stemming from cogito ergo sum. And almost no one uses the term "knowledge" to mean "that which is an immediate logical contradiction to doubt".

This is all very true, and I have been made aware of an argument from a viewpoint I was not familiar enough with to appropriately gauge from its own perspective. Good talk.

2016-02-06 at 1:49 AM UTC

#32

Lanny Bird of Courage

4 sho mang, always good to have someone to bullshit phil topics with.

And if you really are the ole cap't then it's good to have you around. All those times I raged over your (retrospectively obvious) trolling were good times, even if I didn't think so at the time.

2016-02-06 at 8:31 AM UTC

#33

The Self Taught Man Black Hole

4 sho mang, always good to have someone to bullshit phil topics with.

And if you really are the ole cap't then it's good to have you around. All those times I raged over your (retrospectively obvious) trolling were good times, even if I didn't think so at the time.

Lol, I'll try to bring the ol' Captain charm as best as I can. Times have changed and so have I, but I think I can still rassle up a good discussion.

2016-02-08 at 2:23 AM UTC

#34

EasyDoesIt Tuskegee Airman

Fuck I missed this conversation :(

2016-02-08 at 5:52 AM UTC

#35

Sophie Pedophile Tech Support

We don't, but if we're in the machine you suggested, the engineers fucking SUCK.

The first machine we designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to us now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus we redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature.

2016-02-08 at 6:23 AM UTC

#36

fanglekaii Yung Blood

lulzyzzzz

2016-02-08 at 4:54 PM UTC

#37

Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]

I think the whole point is to have both. We want to live in the mundane and access the extraordinary through technology. It's vicarious and within our control–we can adjust and abort as needed for our circumstances, and that makes it a safe way to explore possibilities that might not be immediately available.

I agree that it would be best to utilize both if possible, but the idea behind this thread was to explore the reasons why people would choose one over the other and what their choice really means, if anything.

User Controls

Navigation