Author Topic: My Existential Philosophy  (Read 9830 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pimathbrainiac

  • Occasionally I make projects
  • Members
  • LV10 31337 u53r (Next: 2000)
  • **********
  • Posts: 1731
  • Rating: +136/-23
  • dagaem
    • View Profile
My Existential Philosophy
« on: May 13, 2013, 12:50:15 pm »
Evidently, I exist.
In fact, I KNOW I exist.

Evidently, you exist.
But I don't KNOW that for sure.

Why? Because I think. I think, therefore I am. (no idea where that comes from, but it's catchy)

But I don't know for sure of any existence past my mind. For all I know, I could be perpetually dreaming. You talk to me, but those might just be my own thoughts of what another person might say. Even surprises could be subconscious thoughts. I know I think, but I don't know for a fact that YOU do. I can hook you up to an EEG, but that could just be my brain thinking that you exist. Even if it were possible to share thoughts, I wouldn't know for sure because my brain might be thinking those thoughts. I don't know that you exist at all, but I believe you do, therefore you do in my mind. If you existed and I didn't think that, then you would not exist in my mind, and, as far as I know, you don't exist.

Senses are controlled and processed, ultimately, by the brain. My brain can tell me I'm touching something, but I don't know for sure that it is actually there. This means that I don't know that objects without a human brain exist, either.

Our perception past our own brains might be true, it might be a lie, or it might be a half-truth. Our brains fill in gaps in sensory information with our brains' best guesses. This happens all the time, eg. peripheral vision is mostly our brains' guess at the rest of the picture based on a little information from the edges of our vision. That is why you don't see much movement in your peripheral vision unless everything else in your vision is moving, even if something in your perceived range of vision is moving.

To sum it up: Existence is like quantum mechanics: both true and not true if not known for sure. I know I exist, but I don't know for sure that anything else exists, therefore you both exist and don't exist in my mind, and I both exist and don't exist in your mind (or what I believe is your mind). This is supported by the fact that our brains fill in the gaps of limited sensory information, causing perception.
I am Bach.

Offline Stefan Bauwens

  • Creator of Myst 89 - סטיבן
  • LV10 31337 u53r (Next: 2000)
  • **********
  • Posts: 1799
  • Rating: +162/-24
  • 68k programmer
    • View Profile
    • Portfolio
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2013, 12:57:12 pm »
We're in the matrix dude. To check if you aren't feel behind your neck if you feel a "port". If you don't you're in the matrix.


Very proud Ticalc.org POTY winner (2011 68k) with Myst 89!
Very proud TI-Planet.org DBZ winner(2013)

Interview with me

Offline mdr1

  • LV6 Super Member (Next: 500)
  • ******
  • Posts: 303
  • Rating: +21/-2
    • View Profile
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2013, 01:00:46 pm »
Are you saying that to convince us that you do exist ? How could we trust in you because you say that you could believe that we don't exist ?

Moreover, how can you be sure that you really exist ? Isn't it an illusion ? As a case in point, AI in computer games have the illusion that they exist, but it is not true.



Offline pimathbrainiac

  • Occasionally I make projects
  • Members
  • LV10 31337 u53r (Next: 2000)
  • **********
  • Posts: 1731
  • Rating: +136/-23
  • dagaem
    • View Profile
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2013, 01:02:32 pm »
Are you saying that to convince us that you do exist ? How could we trust in you because you say that you could believe that we don't exist ?

Moreover, how can you be sure that you really exist ? Isn't it an illusion ? As a case in point, AI in computer games have the illusion that they exist, but it is not true.

But AI does not think. It goes by a set of instructions. Even learning AI does not think, and, if it did, how would we know?
I am Bach.

Offline Hayleia

  • Programming Absol
  • Coder Of Tomorrow
  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3367
  • Rating: +393/-7
    • View Profile
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2013, 01:03:24 pm »
Are you saying that to convince us that you do exist ? How could we trust in you because you say that you could believe that we don't exist ?

Moreover, how can you be sure that you really exist ? Isn't it an illusion ? As a case in point, AI in computer games have the illusion that they exist, but it is not true.

But AI does not think. It goes by a set of instructions. Even learning AI does not think, and, if it did, how would we know?
And who tolds you you think ? Who told you you are not a set of instructions ?
I own: 83+ ; 84+SE ; 76.fr ; CX CAS ; Prizm ; 84+CSE
Sorry if I answer with something that seems unrelated, English is not my primary language and I might not have understood well. Sorry if I make English mistakes too.

click here to know where you got your last +1s

Offline Stefan Bauwens

  • Creator of Myst 89 - סטיבן
  • LV10 31337 u53r (Next: 2000)
  • **********
  • Posts: 1799
  • Rating: +162/-24
  • 68k programmer
    • View Profile
    • Portfolio
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2013, 01:03:25 pm »
On a more serious note, I guess you cannot know for sure. But there are a lot of things you cannot know for sure. One of those things many people try to deny, but it's as real as me.

Therefore you must just accept it, hope and believe. ;)


Very proud Ticalc.org POTY winner (2011 68k) with Myst 89!
Very proud TI-Planet.org DBZ winner(2013)

Interview with me

Offline aeTIos

  • Nonbinary computing specialist
  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3913
  • Rating: +184/-32
    • View Profile
    • wank.party
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2013, 01:05:45 pm »
Cogito, ergo sum. That means "I think, therefore I am".
That 'catchy sentence' is a saying from Descartes, a philosopher who lived during the French Revolution (1789). It means that you can't trust anything unless you have checked it yourself, because you can trust your own sense (which is obviously not true, optical illusions etc)...

Descartes invented the Cartesian coordinate system, which is now the most common coordinate system in use.
And a lot more.

Class ended.
I'm not a nerd but I pretend:

Offline Keoni29

  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2466
  • Rating: +291/-16
    • View Profile
    • My electronics projects at 8times8
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2013, 01:06:22 pm »
Money is worth something because everyone accepts it as valuable. Without this thrust there would not be currency. The same thing with existence. Accepting that other humans exist is a matter of trust.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 01:08:03 pm by Keoni29 »
If you like my work: why not give me an internet?








Offline AngelFish

  • Is this my custom title?
  • Administrator
  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3242
  • Rating: +270/-27
  • I'm a Fishbot
    • View Profile
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2013, 03:35:26 pm »
Evidently, I exist.
In fact, I KNOW I exist.

This particular bit of philosophy ("Cogito Ergo Sum") stems primarily from Descartes way back in the 17th century1. Anyway, it's a bit of a tricky statement to make. For one thing, you need to prove that you have perception, which is quite obvious, but impossible to prove without a priori knowledge. More concisely, it's not entirely self-evident that an object which has the property of perception exists. Please excuse the connotations of the word "object" as a flaw of English and not a fundamental flaw in the counter-argument.

This extends to other things. As you mentioned, you really can't be sure of the reliability of your senses, a view called Solipsism. As Descartes argued that for all you know, a malicious entity he called the Evil Genius could be manipulating all of your senses to give you the illusion of an external world.

Quote
To sum it up: Existence is like quantum mechanics: both true and not true if not known for sure. I know I exist, but I don't know for sure that anything else exists, therefore you both exist and don't exist in my mind, and I both exist and don't exist in your mind (or what I believe is your mind). This is supported by the fact that our brains fill in the gaps of limited sensory information, causing perception.

Be very careful with making analogies to Quantum Mechanics, particularly with regard to interpretations of it. In this case, many physicists would vehemently argue that the notion of superposition of states is meaningless as an actual state. To use Schrodinger's cat, they would claim that speaking of the cat as either alive or dead is meaningless until you observe it to be so.

However, your point does have merit. I don't know if you realized this, but you can't encapsulate the notion of "partially true" in classical logic. It's neither solely True or solely False, just like a computer that can only represent 1 or 0. However, there are non-classical systems called fuzzy logics that have an entire sequence of values of "truthiness", just like a quantum computer has an entire range of values between 0 and 1.



1 aeTIos, he had been dead for over a century by the time the French revolution occurred...
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 03:35:40 pm by AngelFish »
∂²Ψ    -(2m(V(x)-E)Ψ
---  = -------------
∂x²        ℏ²Ψ

Offline Juju

  • Incredibly sexy mare
  • Coder Of Tomorrow
  • LV13 Extreme Addict (Next: 9001)
  • *************
  • Posts: 5730
  • Rating: +500/-19
  • Weird programmer
    • View Profile
    • juju2143's shed
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2013, 05:32:22 pm »
Yeah, I learnt that in my philosophy courses, René Descartes was a major philosopher and mathematician at his time, one time he started to doubt everything, even his own existence, He soon figured out that if he can doubt his own existence, he can think, and if he can think, he exists.

Remember the day the walrus started to fly...

I finally cleared my sig after 4 years you're happy now?
THEGAME
This signature is ridiculously large you've been warned.

The cute mare that used to be in my avatar is Yuki Kagayaki, you can follow her on Facebook and Tumblr.

Offline Link

  • LV4 Regular (Next: 200)
  • ****
  • Posts: 152
  • Rating: +7/-3
  • Well excuse me princess!
    • View Profile
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2013, 05:36:40 pm »
Although this may not be relevant, here's a short story about an AI that is seemingly sentient.
It's written by Issac Asimov: http://filer.case.edu/dts8/thelastq.htm

As a side note. I think we all exist. It's simpler that way. When we die or w/e, I'll figure out the rest then.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 07:03:18 pm by Link »

Offline Scipi

  • Omni Kitten Meow~ =^ω^=
  • LV10 31337 u53r (Next: 2000)
  • **********
  • Posts: 1547
  • Rating: +192/-3
  • Meow :3
    • View Profile
    • ScipiSoftware
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2013, 06:02:44 pm »
Hmm. How would it be significant if the Universe was either real or fiction?

Let us say that a Universe in which is illusion, yet we have no control over is synonymous to a Universe which does exist according to our perception. Given that this is true, we only need to show that we do not control the Universe if it is an illusion.

For all "Objects of control", they must reside within the conscious. If any reside elsewhere it becomes ambiguous what is in control and what isn't. Because we do not know what is within our control, the Universe is synonymous with not being within our control to begin with. This is due to the fact that we may know there exist some objects of control within our perception, but we may not know how many objects of control exist in total, and if any exist outside our perception to begin with.

So thus we must prove that there cannot exist any OoC outside our consciousness. However, since there is no way to prove or disprove that, since we have no perspective outside our perspective, then we must be that all OoC are within consciousness.

If we are not certain, then an illusion of non-control manifests, making the Universe effectively equal one that is real.

Basically, this s a way of saying that unless you are entirely certain you control the Universe, (essentially you being a god) then it does not matter if the Universe is real or illusion because the same result can happen regardless.

Edit: Also, Neural Networks, while not conscious nor remotely sentient, it does effectively "think" like we do. That is, in an organic way.

Imma Cat! =^_^= :3 (It's an emoticon now!)
Spoiler For Things I find interesting:
Spoiler For AI Programming:
Spoiler For Shameless advertising:

Spoiler For OldSig:





Spoiler For IMPORTANT NEWS!:
Late last night, Quebec was invaded by a group calling themselves, "Omnimaga". Not much is known about these mysterious people except that they all carried calculators of some kind and they all seemed to converge on one house in particular. Experts estimate that the combined power of their fabled calculators is greater than all the worlds super computers put together. The group seems to be holding out in the home of a certain DJ_O, who the Omnimagians claim to be their founder. Such power has put the world at a standstill with everyone waiting to see what the Omnimagians will do...

Wait... This just in, the Omnimagians have sent the UN a list of demands that must be met or else the world will be "submitted to the wrath of Netham45's Lobster Army". Such demands include >9001 crates of peanuts, sacrificial blue lobsters, and a wide assortment of cherry flavored items. With such computing power stored in the hands of such people, we can only hope these demands are met.

In the wake of these events, we can only ask, Why? Why do these people make these demands, what caused them to gather, and what are their future plans...

Online DJ Omnimaga

  • Former TI programmer
  • CoT Emeritus
  • LV15 Omnimagician (Next: --)
  • *
  • Posts: 55926
  • Rating: +3152/-232
  • CodeWalrus founder & retired Omnimaga founder
    • View Profile
    • DJ Omnimaga Music
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2013, 06:47:48 pm »
Question, how would people behave if the entire world was tool-assisted like in speedruns? Would people be able to run through walls without dying or do all sort of special tricks without hurting themselves too much? :P


Offline AngelFish

  • Is this my custom title?
  • Administrator
  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3242
  • Rating: +270/-27
  • I'm a Fishbot
    • View Profile
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2013, 07:00:17 pm »
Neural networks don't quite "think." Static FFNA's (Feed forward Neural Networks), the standard type in most research, are actually just functions that take inputs and map them to outputs. Only if you accept functionalism and reductive physicalism can you begin to say neural networks can "think" in any capacity. If you also want to say that such a network can be processed by a computer, then you have to drag in the huge overhead of the Church-Turing thesis and throw out all neural networks with irrational edge weights and node states. Unfortunately, with the exception of the Church-Turing thesis, all of these are highly contentious things to present in an argument and it's why neural nets are basically laughed at in most philosophy departments nowadays.
∂²Ψ    -(2m(V(x)-E)Ψ
---  = -------------
∂x²        ℏ²Ψ

Offline Juju

  • Incredibly sexy mare
  • Coder Of Tomorrow
  • LV13 Extreme Addict (Next: 9001)
  • *************
  • Posts: 5730
  • Rating: +500/-19
  • Weird programmer
    • View Profile
    • juju2143's shed
Re: My Existential Philosophy
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2013, 07:23:59 pm »
Maybe all I see and hear is coherent optical illusions made by my brain. Maybe you guys don't even exist. Maybe nothing here exists and are just figments of my imagination. Maybe my entire life is a dream. Maybe something that "exists" is only limited to the realm of my imagination. So everything that exists exists to my point of view. Maybe you can even make exist something that doesn't exist, kinda like this thread I found one time, I don't remember what it's called, but it's akin to hypnosis (as in convincing yourself you're a pony or something), but you can hypnose yourself into convincing yourself your imaginary friend exists and he can even spawn more imaginary friends. (Also thinking God exists, but it's more religious matter and I don't really want to embark in this discussion. But it's pretty much in the same idea, if you want God to exist, then it exists for you (but don't shove its existence down the throats of others, they can believe it doesn't exist).)

Also AngelFish et al. I think you're pretty much challenging the concept of "thinking" with neural networks.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 07:26:37 pm by Juju »

Remember the day the walrus started to fly...

I finally cleared my sig after 4 years you're happy now?
THEGAME
This signature is ridiculously large you've been warned.

The cute mare that used to be in my avatar is Yuki Kagayaki, you can follow her on Facebook and Tumblr.